What Type of Mediation Do You Need? - Dispute Resolution Journal - Vol. 53, No. 2
Nancy Kauffman teaches human resource management, employment law and conflict resolution at the University of North Carolina at Asheville, where she is an associate professor. An experienced arbitrator and mediator, Kauffman serves on several panels, including the American Arbitration Association, FMCS and USPS/NALC panels. Her published works include software application manuals for human resources and articles on various aspects of dispute resolution.
Barbara Ann Davis has a private mediation practice in Asheville, N.C. She was founding executive director of The Mediation Center in Asheville and a founding member and past president of the Mediation Network of North Carolina. Davis has practiced law as a public defender and legal services attorney. A mediator since 1983, she also teaches mediation courses at the University of North Carolina-Ashville and UNC-Charlotte, and directs the campus mediation program at UNC-Asheville. She has written and co-written books on mediation.
Originally from Dispute Resolution Journal
Preview Page
Various types of disputes call for different styles of mediation. The authors discuss the importance of matching the parties’ goals and expectations with the appropriate mediator and mediation style in order to resolve a dispute successfully. Even the concept of success in mediation varies, according to the authors. For some parties, the financial aspect of a settlement is of utmost importance while others consider relationship issues more important.
Mediation is becoming the dispute-resolution method of choice for businesses, organizations, and individuals in the United States.1 ADR, which used to stand for alternative dispute resolution, now has been reframed to mean appropriate dispute resolution, indicating a change from viewing facilitated negotiations as outside the norm to viewing them as fully accepted practices. The reasons for this paradigm shift in grievance-resolution mechanisms are twofold: outcome potential and process control.
In terms of outcome potential, mediation can result in significant savings and improved settlement rates. For example, according to the Center for Public Resources Institute for Dispute Resolution, 109 businesses saved more than $75.7 million in direct legal costs in 1994 through the use of ADR to resolve disputes.2 Most community dispute-settlement centers boast a resolution rate in excess of 90% for clients who voluntarily participate in mediation3.
But not all conflicts call for cash settlement; not all parties in dispute are motivated by financial incentives. For example, many workplace disputes involve ongoing relationships and, with the low unemployment rate, more businesses are concerned with sustaining relationships. Many conflicts are resolved successfully, without any exchange of money, through behavioral contracts or agreements regarding changed relationships. This underlies the second reason for the growing preference4 for mediation: process control-participation in decision-making as well as a much fuller opportunity to be heard. Evaluative studies show these aspects—