Mediation
Disputes occur in different forms, and one technique cannot be effective for all disputes. Therefore, different disputes require different techniques and models of mediation to find a solution. The most prudent method of solving a dispute is to match different mediators and models and later to choose the model that fits the dispute at hand. The success of a mediation process is rated by the reaction of the conflicting parties throughout the process. A mediation process that leaves conflicting parties with unresolved issues is said to have failed. Therefore, mediators have to give a fair environment that makes each party comfortable so that the final agreement is mutual and that the conflict does not worsen. Some mediation techniques that have been successfully employed include the evaluative, facilitative, and transformative models. The mediation techniques have given different results on different occasions with some occasions, preferring the application of a single while others required different combinations of the techniques.
A dispute has arisen after a car dealer sells a car to a lady who comes back to claim that the car has broken down. The cause of the break down is not clear although the car owner believes that the car must be defective right from the time of purchase (McCorkle, & Reese, 2018). On the other side, the car dealer claims that the car broke down outside the warranty period and that the dealer is not responsible for the damages. A disagreement has ensued with the car owner feeling lied to while the car dealer is reluctant of accepting liability for damages that should be catered for by the owner. At some point, the car dealer believes that the car owner failed for not checking the condition of the engine oil, but the car owner does not believe that the car had covered any distance large enough to necessitate an engine check. The two conflicting parties have decided to seek the services of a mediator to solve the conflict and bring the two parties to an agreement that will be comfortable for both parties. The mediation process appears to have been a successful one, and several techniques were used. The success of the process owes the combination of the evaluative, facilitative, and transformative techniques.
The evaluative mediation technique is based on the information provided by the conflicting parties to the mediator on private discussions. The importance of the evaluative technique is that the parties are allowed to present their side of the story without being influenced by fear of the other party (Mello, Alper, & Allen, 2019). The mediator is allowed some time with each of the parties and later hosts the two parties to communicate the way forward. However, the evaluative method may not be effective in instances where the parties need to come to a bargaining agreement. The case of the car dealer and the car owner does not allow the evaluative technique to be applied solely. The parties need to bargain on the agreement that does not leave either part uncomfortable. Therefore, the mediator introduces the parties to each other before seeking a private meeting with each party. The private meetings bring out the complaints of each party, and late the mediator brings the conflicting parties together. The mediation process involves the mediator as an overseer of the process with the two parties agreeing on the way forward.
In facilitative technique, the mediator only plays an overseeing role while the conflicting parties play the discussing role. The conflicting parties are kept in a joint meeting for the longest time possible. The idea behind keeping the conflicting parties together is to ensure that the parties come up with a solution that is acceptable for both parties. The mediator in a facilitative technique gets information from the parties and helps them to appreciate the risks associated with the decisions made during the mediation process. In a bid to make a successful mediation, the mediator asks open-ended questions that provide a solution to the conflict from the solutions provided by the involved parties. In the car case, the mediator shifted to the facilitative technique after holding successful meetings with the involved parties. The two conflicting ladies are then brought together in a joint meeting that lets them speak out their arguments.
The car owner is convinced that the car dealer is responsible for the damages that happened to the vehicle. Also, the car dealer believes that the car dealer should cater for the costs of repairing the vehicle or refunding the full cost of the vehicle. On the other hand, the car dealer believes that the expiry of the warranty period means that the car dealer is no longer responsible for any damages to the car. Also, the car dealer believes that the car owner behaved irresponsibly by creating a stir in the car dealer’s backyard and should have done better. The discussion that happens between the two parties, however, appears to calm issues down. The car owner appears to realize that the car damage could have been her fault. Also, the car dealer realizes that she could also have been responsible for the damage, although no clear information is available regarding the main person to blame for the damage. Eventually, the parties come to an agreement that involves taking an action that favors both parties.
The conflict, however, appears to require a bit of transformative mediation. In the transformative technique, the parties recognize the interests and values of the other party. The incorporation of respect for values and interests further strengthens the outcome of the mediation process. When the parties respect the interests of each other, the decisions made will be considerate, and the conflict will be over. For example, car conflict brings out the values and interests of the involved parties. For example, the car owner is concerned with her fixed budget and believes that the car dealer will lift some of the burdens from the budget. The car dealer on the other side is concerned about her business inventory and has to do some consultations before agreeing to a deal with the car owner. The car owner, however, realizes that the car dealer has concerns over the car owner’s budget and therefore, the car owner accepts the deal that the car dealer proposes without resistance. The ability to learn the values and intentions of the other party have helped in ensuring that the deal is sealed without having to strain to unnecessary stages of the mediation process.
The techniques used to solve the car crisis are not the only efficient techniques. The parties appear to have chosen the best techniques according to their needs. However, other techniques exist, and the conflict would have been solved. A technique that takes the least time to solve may be termed as the best technique (Cerna Machackova & Dedkova, 2016). However, several factors are considered before concluding that a technique is the best for the problem at hand. For example, a technique may take the least time to solve conflict, but the solution given may not be long-lasting. Therefore, the choice of technique does not imply that other techniques cannot work. Also, a combination of techniques may work better than single techniques where the combination should be wisely chosen to avoid complicating the mediation process. Some of the other techniques that could be used for the conflict are best ideas win mediation, outside-in mediation, and orchestrated mediation.
The best ideas win mediation technique requires that all the parties are working in collaboration with the mediator to come up with a fiscal solution. The mediator assumes a position that puts them inside the conflict and uses their experience to help in come up with solutions (Gutenbrunner & Wagner, 2016). In the car case, for example, the decision to come up with the decision would not be left to the conflicting parties. The mediator would have used her experience to give recommendations on the decisions to go by. For example, the mediator would have asked the car dealer and the car owner to consider sharing the cost of repairing the vehicle. The mediator is in a better position to assess the validity of the decision that the parties make and whether the decisions will remain firm in the long run. Also, the conflicting parties will most likely respect the opinions of the mediator more than they will respect similar decisions from the other party in the conflict. Additionally, the parties could have used the outside-in technique to try and find a solution.
The outside-in mediation technique involves involving a third party in the conflict. The outside-in technique has proved useful in most conflicts, especially family issues, where family relationships may hinder agreements. However, the outside-in technique is not popular because parties will not be willing to spill their secrets to a third party. A mediator will be preferred to a third party, and the parties will not be comfortable where a third show signs of bias. Also, the outside-in technique allows for the incorporation of unqualified third parties, and the conflict may be worsened, and any attempts to seek an agreement may prove futile.
Moreover, the orchestrated mediation technique could be used as an alternative. The orchestrated technique involves planning for the mediation process ahead. The technique is most efficient for complex conflicts such as conflicts between states. However, the application of the technique to a less complex situation may make conflicts appear more serious than they are. Therefore, the choice to use the orchestrated technique should only be made where other techniques have failed. In the case of car conflict, the orchestrated technique would mean that the discussion did not involve private meetings. The discussion would most probably begin at the joint meeting stage. Additionally, the mediator would have pre-planned solutions that she would be seeking support from the parties involved. Also, the mediator would not rely on the solutions provided by the conflicting parties but will instead provide a solution that will be discussed by the conflicting parties.
The experience with the car case conflict has reminded me of a past that has been revolving around conflicts. However, the conflict has changed my perception of conflicts and also inspired me to aim at becoming a better mediator (Lewis, & Umbreit, 2015). Initially, I had been unfamiliar with a combination of mediation techniques to improve the solution search for conflict. Comparing my experience around conflicts with the current conflict made me realize that I needed to improve my mediation skills. I have been able to track my mistakes in past conflicts that have been making the mediation processes unsuccessful. Therefore, the solution found for the car case conflict provides an efficient avenue for testing the combination of mediation techniques, and I am certainly on my way towards becoming a better mediator. The experience with past conflicts is essential in ensuring that mistakes committed in previous mediation processes are not repeated in the future.
In sum, mediation is the process of seeking an agreement between conflicting parties with the help of a mediator. Several techniques are available for making the mediation process successful. The car case conflict applied a combination of three techniques, and the results were desirable. The facilitative technique, evaluative technique, and the transformative technique have been used to find a solution for the conflict. Other techniques are available for use in solving the conflict such as the best ideas win, the outside-in technique, and the orchestrated technique. The experience in conflict solving is crucial in shaping a mediator’s career.
References
Cerna, A., Machackova, H., & Dedkova, L. (2016). Whom to trust: The role of mediation and perceived harm in support seeking by cyberbullying victims. Children & Society, 30(4), 265-277.
Gutenbrunner, L., & Wagner, U. (2016). Perspective-taking techniques in the mediation of intergroup conflict. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 22(4), 298.
Lewis, T., & Umbreit, M. (2015). A humanistic approach to mediation and dialogue: An evolving transformative practice. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 33(1), 3-17.
McCorkle, S., & Reese, M. J. (2018). Mediation theory and practice. Sage Publications.
Mello, S., Alper, M., & Allen, A. A. (2019). Physician Mediation Theory and Pediatric Media Guidance in the Digital Age: A Survey of Autism Medical and Clinical Professionals. Health Communication, 1-11.