We have two lessons now on mediation process. Whether you observe a peer based mediation in the middle school or a formal mediation of a civic dispute you'll see similarities In the phases of the process. You will see two parties guided through a process by a neutral mediator, someone whose job is to guide the process, not to advocate for a particular outcome. It's crucial that the parties enter this process of mediation voluntarily, and that they work together to identify a mutually agreed-upon outcome. Mediations work when people feel recognized in the process and empowered to craft their own agreement. There are four basic phases to a mediation process. Introductions, storytelling, problem solving and agreement. The introductions phase seems really simple, but it's crucial. This is the point where you are trying to set the tone in the room. You first introduce yourself as the mediator and then invite the participants to introduce themselves and say what they would like to be called. Now let's just pause here, because that very simple act conveys what important issues are already being discerned. When I asked two parties what they should like to be called and one person says Mark and the other person says Dr. Johnson, then immediately you know there is something in play, their power issues are already unfolding. So, the simplest tasks of an introduction can tell you a lot about the dynamics of the scenario. The second part of the introductions, is an affirmation, a word of affirmation. It's important that the parties know that you know that what they're doing is difficult. Then you need to recognize that this is hardwork and it takes courage to enter into a mediation process. The third step in the introductions phase, is an explanation of the process and the mediator's role. For many people, mediation is new territory and it's certainly a different way of communicating. And a different way of structuring And really experiencing what we usually experience as an argument, right? It's a whole different environment so it take sometime to explain to people what's going to unfold and make sure that they are comfortable with the process. The last step relates to that and that last step that mediator set some ground rules for the process itself and this is partly to help the participants know what to expect, but also so that they understand that there are parameters around this procedure that they need to agree to. Some of the stay underground rules are,no interruptions and to treat each other with respect. The second part of a mediation, is called story telling. This is the phase where the mediator invites each party, to take turns telling their stories without interruption. During the story telling phase the mediator is doing two kinds of listening, and each challenging.. The mediator has to listen for the details of the story from two different perspectives and retain that. But the mediator is also listening for things that the participants don't say necessarily. The mediator is trying to pull out some unstated needs or deep Interests that are beneath the stated positions. And that material that gets pulled out from underneath will be very helpful in subsequent phases of a mediation. The third phase is called problem solving. And it's in this point when the hopefully the party is shift from an adversarial posture to more of a collaborative posture. The mediator is helping them to clarify some issues. To see some common concerns and then to select an issue to focus on. There are also in this phase of the process making night shift from stated positions to a level of interests, what's underneath the positions and hopefully even deeper to needs that they might have in common. As the parties shift from an adversarial position to a collaborative position, they can also generate together some options that allow the parties to move forward in a collaborative fashion what's really important about this, is that the options are not being offered by the mediator. The mediator is helping them to see some common ground, so that they can generate options together. The fourth phase, is agreement. Key to a successful mediation is a mutually agreed upon outcome. If the previous phases have unfolded with honest identification of underlying issues, and genuine concerns and interests, then parties to reach a point where they see some common interest to build upon, this is that shift from adversarial to collaborative pestering. In the manual for community mediators Ron Kraybill, Robert Evans and Alice Fresure Evans named characteristics of good agreement their list is helpful not only for mediators in a formal setting, but for anyone who is trying to work with people toward a solution. The first feature, is that good agreements are clear, specific, and balanced. Instead of saying I'll be nicer or we'll make policies that are more adjust. Agreements need to specify what constitutes niceness or justice right. They need to be clear and specific. Mediators need to listen for balance here too. Is one party working harder than the other? Is one party accommodating the other? Perhaps agreeing to things that do not really meet the needs they have articulated so far. A second quality of a good agreement, is that it's realistic. Mediators can help people to be honest about what they really can and cannot do It is not helpful to the relationship if the parties make promises at this point that they really can't keep. Mediators, like trainers or coaches, can help the parties be clear about what they need to do to move forward and what they actually can do. It's also important that the agreement is proactive that it looks ahead. So the agreement should build end strategies for addressing subsequent problems that arise as the parties try to implement the agreement. Now, not all mediations proceed neatly through these four phases. Mediators are remarkably adaptable people. And they have to be. Their job is to guard a process that's proven to be helpful. And also, attempt creative interventions along the way if the process is not progressing. So for example, they might invite the parties to caucus to meet separately, and then come back together. Or they might need to pause the mediation to bring in some new information. Either way, what mediators are doing is to preserve a process that's trustworthy, but also not keep it so rigid that they can't think creatively in order to address emerging needs of the parties moving through the process. So let's move now from the ideal phases of mediation to focus more fully on the mediators themselves and see what we can learn from them.
