Over a year ago, I reviewed an article in the ACR Conflict Resolution Quarterly, Fall- Vol 28, No. 1, by James A. Wall, Jr. and Suzanne Chan-Serafin, asking “Do Mediators Walk Their Talk in Civil Cases?” Wall and Chan-Serafin, along with Timothy Dunne have
now revisited the issue of mediator strategies (what I call "styles") to
analyze the relative consistency and success rates of different
mediation styles, as well as the settlement rates in particular types of
cases. Again, their data reveals some surprising and not so surprising trends.
In the original article, the authors analyzed whether mediators stuck to the style they said they would use and, if not, with what results on settlement. The article concluded generally that the mediators who proclaimed to use the pressing style were more consistent in maintaining that style, and self-proclaimed evaluative mediators came in second for consistency. In contrast, self-styled neutral mediators were less likely to "walk their talk AND the failure to follow their stated style resulted in greater break down in negotiations when compared to the other two groups.
In the original article, the authors analyzed whether mediators stuck to the style they said they would use and, if not, with what results on settlement. The article concluded generally that the mediators who proclaimed to use the pressing style were more consistent in maintaining that style, and self-proclaimed evaluative mediators came in second for consistency. In contrast, self-styled neutral mediators were less likely to "walk their talk AND the failure to follow their stated style resulted in greater break down in negotiations when compared to the other two groups.
I cannot tell whether or not this new article is based on the same study, but much of the framework and conclusions were similar. This study also focused on pressing, evaluative and neutral strategies. See The Effects of Neutral, Evaluative, and Pressing Mediator Strategies, Wall, Dunne and Chan-Serafin, ACR Conflict Resolution Quarterly, Winter- Vol 29, No. 2.
Mediators were coded as "pressing" if they would "press one or both sides," "be direct, persistent and candid," "serve as a devil's advocate and kick each of the parties. They were coded as evaluative if they "would advise, analyze the case, give opinions, ask about, indicate, and discuss positive or negative aspects of each side's case," or "make suggestions when the merits and deficiencies of the case were discussed." Finally, mediators were coded as "neutral" if "they said they would not take sides and would be neutral, act as a referee, keep both sides talking, have no interest in the outcome, be impartial, and not judge or tell the parties what to do."
The authors drew the following conclusions from the study:
- Pressing and evaluative styles are significantly more likely to result in an agreement than a neutral style.
- Disputants were more satisfied with the process provided by pressing or evaluative mediator styles, but the difference was not significant.
- Liability, motor vehicle and medical malpractice, have higher settlement rates than contract and employment cases.
- From time to time mediators changed strategies during the course of mediation--such as beginning a neutral and shifting to pressing; however, mediators who were consistent had higher success rates than those who used variable strategies.
- A number of pressing techniques resulted in greater success: when the mediators were more assertive, offered advice, gave an opinion, communicated the opponent's offer, praised the disputants.
The authors noted that of the 100 mediators studied, not a single one used any transformative techniques, such as empowering the disputants, attempting to improve the relationship between the parties, or providing them with bargaining skills. Rather the primary goal of all 100 "was agreement, not improvement of the relationship or empowerment and edification of the disputants." The authors concluded that the "[t]he reasons for this bat-radar focus seem straightforward: the disputants expected the mediators to help them reach agreement; the mediators were judged according to their agreement rates; and primarily, the mediators knew the disputants would probably not have future interactions."
I was frankly a bit shocked to learn that not a single one among 100 mediators were more transformative. I provide mediation in a many different contexts--community disputes; employment disputes; domestic relations; land use disputes; and general civil disputes--and I am involved in a variety of mediation organizations and news groups, and I frequently encounter transformative mediators. As a result, I'm very curious as to how or where the authors located the 100 mediators studied, and what type of mediation environment they typically operate in.
If you are interested in arbitration, mediation, contract ALJ, or conflict coaching services, please contact Pilar Vaile, P.C. at (505) 247-0802 or info@pilarvailepc.com.
