Mediation styles

25 Basics of mediation (2)

This is the second of a total of 25 blog articles dealing with the basics of mediation.

After writing about the legal basis in the first article, this article is about Mediation styles – i.e. the way in which a mediator works when mediating between conflicting parties.

Introduction - Three basic styles of mediation can be distinguished

Just as mediators encounter different conflict parties in their work and adapt to them in their mediation activities, there are also different approaches and styles of mediation. The style chosen by the mediator depends not only on their personal preferences, but also on the specific matter being mediated. The practical application of mediation styles depends on the context. And every mediator should have a variety of options at their disposal in order to be able to react flexibly to the diverse development possibilities in mediations. I generally refer to a style here as a stereotype that describes outwardly perceptible behaviour, including manner of speaking, gestures, facial expressions, choice of words, etc.

Basically, three styles can be distinguished, each of which can have a variety of mediation schools, methods and concepts:

• Fact-orientated mediation
• process-orientated mediation
• relationship-orientated mediation.

Fact-orientated mediation focuses on the Field of conflict in the foreground. The procedure itself and the conflict relationship between the parties involved tend to take a back seat and are hardly considered for a mutual rapprochement.

The process-oriented approach recognises the key to de-escalation and agreement in the appropriate Selection and design of the process.

In relationship-oriented mediation, the focus is on the people involved in the conflict and their Conflictual relationship in the foreground. This is where the relevant starting points for further development are seen.

It is clear that there is no better or worse style, but that the styles should be used depending on the context of the specific mediation work. Even within a mediation, the styles may change or be mixed. However, every mediator will have a preferred style based on their profession, training and experience.

1. factual mediation style  

In fact-based mediation, the "object of conflict" is placed at the centre, i.e. what the parties name as the point of dispute. This can be money, for example. This object of conflict is then considered soberly by the parties and their conflict history, so that the charged emotions no longer stand in the way of an objective debate about an appropriate solution.

For fact-based mediation work, knowledge of the subject matter of the conflict or the underlying industry is definitely an advantage for the mediator. It is not uncommon for the fact-oriented mediants to place their trust in a mediator who „is one of them“, practises the same profession(s) or has other professional experience. The basis of fact-orientated mediation is the idea that it is one There must be an optimal and objectively ascertainable solution that can be found together in a reasonable manner. To this end, objective assessment standards are consistently used, which have been jointly agreed beforehand.

The most important methods in this area are probably the "Harvard concept" and the sMethods based on game theory can be mentioned. I will not go into the details of both methodological approaches and their partly shared development history here. However, a striking feature of both is that the personalities of those involved in the conflict are not seen as the key to finding a solution, but can be an obstacle. The Harvard method always strongly recommends "separating the problem from the person". Or to put it more clearly: the factual problem is not the person, but the person can make it difficult to recognise the factual problem. For this reason, the Harvard method aims to reach a positive agreement on the subject of the conflict, for which neutral, measurable and generally recognised criteria should be used as far as possible.

2. process-orientated mediation style 

A process-orientated mediation style is very similar to the fact-based mediation approach. However, there are differences in detail. In particular, knowledge of the conflict area is considered far less necessary. The decisive factor for the mediation process is the process design. The mediator is primarily responsible for conducting the mediation process in a professional and "state of the art" manner. This is intended to eliminate procedural obstacles and ensure that the parties' personal interests are protected. The mediator does not get involved in the content. The aim is for the parties to be able to (re)reach an agreement on the content. This shows the proximity to the factual mediation style.

In practice, a common method of process-orientation is, for example, shuttle mediation: Here, the parties involved are in different rooms and the mediator "shuttles" back and forth between the two, using this procedural design to ensure a factual exchange of information. Communication between the people takes place via the mediator, who filters out the emotions that flare up in this way. In general, the procedural style is based on methods that emphasise the process of the mediation procedure and recognise this as the key to reaching an agreement. In this way, some mediators conclude, for example, that the mediation process consists of far more than 5 or 6 phases, which – run through true to procedure – lead to the goal.

3. relationship-orientated mediation style

Relationship-orientated mediation approaches differ considerably from procedural and fact-based approaches. The decisive difference is that the inter-party conflict relationship of the specific conflict personalities is in the foreground.

The mediator does not see himself as a problem solver, but primarily as an intermediary between people. He is a „fellow human being“ (Duss-von Werdt) and acts as such. Such mediators are least likely to characterise their activities as "services", but rather as "Service to people". They are probably no strangers to a certain social worker ethos.

The procedural and factual approaches separate the problem from the people in order to ignore their personalities and emotionalisations. The relationship-based approaches, on the other hand, point out that the problems cannot be understood without the (social roles of the) parties involved. The premise is that the parties must understand each other in order to be able to approach each other. Ideally, both sides should therefore develop a mutual understanding of the other side's perspective and way of thinking. This then leads to a joint solution finding process.

These approaches emphasise that the basis of mediative work is (Social) psychological knowledge are. Without these, only compromises could be reached. This is based on the idea that each individual can find their own personality in the conflict ("The burden of man is inviolable"). Conflicts are a highly personal matter that no one other than the owners "may" resolve, although they sometimes need support to do so. This is why mediation also promotes personal development.

Underlying concepts are, for example, the Transformative mediation according to Bush and Folger. A solution is therefore always preceded by internal changes in the parties involved. On the one hand, the mediation process serves to encourage the conflict parties to clarify their true interests and needs and to formulate these openly (empowerment). On the other hand, mediation should serve to recognise the interests, needs and perspectives of the other party and to understand them as an opportunity for their own and therefore joint process of change (recognition). Ultimately, the relationship-oriented approaches emphasise Mediation as a framework for social learning processes. Similar approaches with completely different methods and concepts are, for example, the "Transgressive mediation" according to Watzke, the Meaningful mediation or the Mediation based on transactional analysis. What all these approaches have in common is the conflict-theoretical basis that those involved bear individual responsibility for the current and undesirable situation and that this is the key to finding a way out.

Conclusion

At first glance, one might think that procedural and fact-orientated mediation approaches are more suitable for conflicts in business, politics and administration. After all, the focus here is more on "the matter at hand", as people are merely fulfilling their (legal) duties or their work. On the other hand, relationship-based mediation approaches appear to be preferable when interpersonal relationships are to be organised, for example in family disputes, pending divorces, in schools or in companies.

On closer examination, however, it becomes clear that each of the three different starting points (subject matter of the conflict, process design, conflict participants) can be helpful for the mediator in his specific mediation task to develop hypotheses, to conceptualise the conflict situation appropriately and to mediate the conflict in such a way that the conflict parties become conflict partners in the process.