The other day, I came across one of the stickier issues in mediation - an imbalance of power between the parties, when neither one would admit that this was the case. It's a difficult problem to navigate as a mediator when one party won't acknowledge that the proposed solution is actually catastrophic for them.
Why would this happen? Why would anyone allow themselves to be pushed into an agreement that didn't actually work for them? The answer, unfortunately, is because they are often too scared or too timid to speak up and serve their own best interests. Why does this happen? Sometimes, it's the result of long-entrenched patterns of behavior, where one person has bullied the other for so long, and for so many years, that it's just the way they operate. Other times, the bullied party does not feel their position is justified, even if it is ultimately "just," or at least, reasonable.
Though I subscribe to a facilitative model of mediation (a party-driven process), I often find it difficult to hold my tongue when I see this sort of pattern emerging in a mediation. But what can I do as a mediator to rectify the process and navigate the discussion to a more productive place, without impinging on the autonomy/self-determination of the parties?
As a mediator, I am neutral. I can't advocate for one party or another, but it is my duty to ensure that no one signs an agreement that will prove to be untenable. So, while I can't push one party's agenda, I can ask tough questions to ensure that each person understands the ramifications of the disputed term, and also understands that it's better to walk away from the mediation than to leave with an agreement that is patently unfair (or even an agreement that they don't reasonably believe they can abide).
My goal is to leave parties with an agreement that will help them navigate their future interactions with dignity and respect, but failing that, I would prefer that they not set up an agreement that will almost certainly lead to failure or unfairness. In this sense, I represent the idea that no agreement is better than an unworkable agreement.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This seems like a great approach. Is this something you came up with yourself or a technique that is taught as part of mediation training?
ReplyDeleteThanks! It's a combination of the two. My natural tendencies lean towards facilitating rather than directing, and I've found that in mediation the results are much more lasting if the parties are allowed to direct the process. Power imbalances are tricky, but there's no need to complicate (or validate!) them further by committing an unhealthy dynamic to writing.
ReplyDelete