So what to call the skill set that in the previous Handbook was CONTROLLING THE PROCESS? Subheads include skills and decisions such as: directing conversation, summarizing, restating, protecting, intervening, when to quit. Each of the following verbs contain a fistful of assumptions about what actually happens or “should” happen in a mediation.
Controlling the process — the mediators are in charge, they structure the conversation, decide what content and behavior are acceptable, prevent hostility from getting out of hand.
Directing the process — similar goals, with a gentler hand, and with the implicit or explicit permission of the parties.
Managing the process — the mediators structure and facilitate, while consulting and persuading the parties to participate effectively. Implies that the process is never complete or perfect, requiring attention and tweaking as discussions progress.
Overseeing the process — the mediators and the participants are collectively creating the process, with the mediators in the role of consultant, designer, advisor, facilitator, and/or teacher.
Facilitating the process — the mediator is charged with making the process easier, making it work. It leaves open the question of whether the participants or the mediators design the process and make process decisions along the way. [I'm tilting towards using this one]
Guiding the process — the mediator is piloting the process, but not necessarily actively facilitating it. They may be backstage advising or coaching.
Advising the process, process consultants — the participants are in charge, and ask the mediators to assist within a given set of criteria.
Thoughts appreciated.
Just read all of the comments, sans blueberry muffin of vanilla soda, and my head is spinning. I’ll comment on some things and add my own take.
I like facilitation; it has a nice balance of mediator/party interaction that supports our original philosopy–self-determination and empowement. Please don’t jump on me for using those terms; they are properly descriptive of what I want to express. Facilitation also allows the mediators to message and tweak the process to fit the needs of the parties without stating it openly. One just does it. It’s why I like this model. If one is comfortable with a model, it is coveyed to the parties who in turn will find a comfort level with the process and with what is going on at the table.
I’ve often thought that when parties are in conflict and remain so despite efforts to resolve matters, it is because it fuels their day-to-day existence. Remember the woman who arrived at the table with NINE years of diaries detailing her neighbor’s activities? I have listened to enough self-rightousness to fill the state of Alaska and threaten Russia. Sometimes I think that mediators need to sort through that more than postitions and interests.
As a trainer, I haven’t felt that the discussion on Issues, Positions and Interests has been difficult or fraught with confusion. What has been a supreme and ugly challenge is “Setting the Agenda. I understand the concept and while it may be helpful to mediators who like to be organized I have found that a mediation has a “life” of its own; a flow, if you please. I am reluctant to interrupt that flow with “my agenda for their meeting.” I think it is a good idea to keep a running list and to refer to it to insure that all issues are covered.
Those pesky “heading” for the process. Are we dwelling too much on this issue. Ideally we use them for training purposes to give trainees some sense of how a mediation may progress and do not refer to them specifically while mediating in the real world. In a sense they are “identifiers” for the trainers rather than specific language needed by the mediators to inform the parties where they are in the process. Am I over simplfying???
Just had a call for mediation; I shall return.
peace
Thanks Brenda,
“Facilitating” literally means “to make easier” and I like that sense, too.
Could you say more — maybe a new post? about what you actually do in “sorting through” self-righteousness? Are you talking about broadening people’s perspectives? Prying them loose from their death grip on their position (both in terms of what SHOULD happen and their insistence on how virtuous and correct they have been during the whole ordeal? What can the mediator do to help people back down from self-centered and self-righteous tirades?
Agenda: You’re in good company. Many folks are lobbying for the disappearance of “Agendas” in all their incarnations. Do you just keep a private list or do you check in with folks at some point to see if there are any topics to discuss that haven’t been mentioned already? For newer mediators, how do you make sure they get the main topics out before they dive into the details of problem solving on topic x or y?
Has anyone experimented with using a public list (on a board or central piece of paper) during the mediation? When I’ve done that, I like the results. The MACRO DVD of various Maryland mediators shows a family business mediator and a community mediators using white board and flip chart for this, and it created a helpful focal point. I now urge trainees to try this method in mediation training roleplays, and think it works well (also helps during debriefing). Some of them get confused about what exactly they should write up on the board and the wording of it.
Headings: can’t tell you how many mediators I’ve heard say to disputing parties “OK now we’re going to have uninterrupted time”.
Thanks for all your comments! — Jenny