The strategic element of mediation or the requirement for mediation that makes it interesting for organisations in the first place.

Introduction

What is the structurally new element that characterises mediation? It is not new that a third party is involved. Nor is it entirely new that the interests of the parties involved are accorded special significance (or rather, importance?). Although the interests are explicitly worked out in mediation, the interests of the parties are also taken into account in court - mediated via the alleged claim (Section 194 BGB) and clothed in the statement of claim. The mediator also takes the interests into account in order to submit a good mediation proposal.

However, mediation alone is able to incorporate a strategic element into conflict management. The joint possibilities become the „decisive“ factor in conflict management. The future becomes the focus of conflict management.

Basics: equalisation – mediation – development

Dealing with conflicts by involving a third party is generally a cultural achievement of mankind. In a conflict, "third parties" are always an imposition for the conflict parties. They challenge them in terms of arguments and social conflict resolution, whether through their procedure or their mere presence. Third parties always bring their own perspective and focus. After all, their presence is supposed to change something.

The fact that mediators work in a structured manner, as required by law, or in an emotion-orientated manner, does not make them unique among third parties. After all, mediators are not prohibited from working in a structured manner and paying attention to the relationship level in their communication. Neither are judges, by the way. This is not what makes mediation new. And the fact that mediators generally do not make a substantive decision (like judges) or refrain from communicating a mediation proposal (unlike conciliators) is more or less a question of technique. In any case, the dividing line between process and content responsibility was drawn by William Turner rather than Pablo Picasso.

For a deeper understanding, it helps to take a look at the temporal dimensionswhich are taken into consideration: Equalising elements in conflict resolution always refer to the past. Judges are masters of this by law. Mediation activities, on the other hand, are always focussed on the present relationship. This is the playing field of mediation. Both also occur in mediation. However, mediation only becomes unique and innovative when it deals with the conflict in a future-orientated way.

The new of mediation – The extension to the future

What is new about mediation is its expansion into the third dimension of time: the future. Where is a solution not sought in court or in arbitration, but (hopefully) very much sought in mediation? In the future. It reveals the new possibilities that only mediation opens up, while judges have to filter out the legally relevant aspects of the past and conciliators sound out the current centre that allows for a compromise.

Mediators, on the other hand, have explicitly taken up the cause of (conflict resolution) "enlarging the cake" and creating a "win-win situation" out of an oppressive situation. This is not achieved by reinterpreting the past or simply by changing one's perspective on the present. Rather, enlarging the cake is a process that needs to be initiated now, but is nevertheless a future process that is developed in the mediation process, the ingredients of which are "clarified" and the implementation of which is agreed.

Of course, mediators also mediate and often ensure a certain balance (e.g. in victim-offender mediation).Equalisation or other forms of apologies, which are always compensatory measures). But this does not necessarily go hand in hand with an increase in the size of the cake.

Equalisation and mediation are often Preparatory work to ultimately realise strategic development and growth opportunities to create – and "enlarge the cake".

Equalisation and mediation are Preparatory work that creates the space to actually grow the cake. Such development and successful growth require a strategic focus.

The strategic element

What characterises the strategic element? Strategy deals with explicitly with future-orientated, often survival-relevant issues of a social system (Nagel/Wimmer). strategy encourages people to consider which development is desirable and which future is worth striving for. Based on the "picture of the future", approaches for conflict management can then be found: How do we get there from here? What do we need to do to get there (over) tomorrow?

How does the strategic element come into mediation?

The strategic element must be activated by the mediator. If he does not reach further into the future and does not bring it into the present communication, it remains somewhere, usually on the left - and the mediation is at best a pleasant, emotionally interesting conciliation - even if the mediator does not make a proposal. However, if the mediator brings the (silently hoped for or still unconscious) wishes for the future into the mediation, i.e. into the conflict(!), then they are utilising the potential that they have been granted as a mediator.

In terms of methodology, mediation can draw on the experience of organisational strategy consulting - which is already happening (Kurt Faller's system design approach for example). In my opinion, the path through the "U" seems to be particularly worthwhile here, as the Otto Scharmer in his organisational development approach "Theory U". Incidentally, an approach that took its starting point in conflict management and was developed by Friedrich Glasl and Dirk Lemson was developed.

Consequences for mediation

What consequences can be drawn from these considerations for mediation?

• Mediation has a balancing element to eliminate injustices - without condemning. Mediation is also a mediating tool for finding common ground - without hypocrisy. But only strategically orientated mediation makes use of the potential that makes this form of mediation unique.
• Mediation is establishing a new trend in conflict resolution. Social systems, especially economically active organisations, can simply no longer afford to act solely on the basis of the past or with a view to the present in the event of a conflict. Exploring the strategic possibilities, especially in conflict, makes the mediation process valuable for them – if that is what it offers! The presumed potential in the conflict and its irrefutable feedback function must be utilised in order to survive economically. The case of conflict as a learning field, that is the value of mediation; its strategy is to create communicative space for this.
• Mediation seems unsuitable for "mass-produced conflict". What appears to make sense in individual cases may well raise doubts as a regular method in mass everyday conflicts such as consumer disputes. The "investment" required is disproportionate to the result, and arbitration is the method of choice here. For this reason, the VSBG has regarded conciliation as the normal and standard case, even if it has not excluded mediation, cf. section 18 VSBG.

Strategic mediation therefore has a good chance of establishing itself as a serious conflict management method in companies. To achieve this, it must utilise its strengths and not try to play the understanding bringer of justice (Justitia). It stands for dealing with conflicts strategically, recognising the commitment and motivation of those involved and integrating them appropriately. During conflicts, it offers the opportunity to perceive the quiet signals of the organisation and to integrate them into the overall strategy. In this respect, strategically oriented mediation can be established as a thermostat in the organisational culture in order to constantly readjust the right temperature.

I would love to discuss the ideas presented with you. If you would like to do so, simply write in the comments section.

All the best for the weekend!

Sascha