Today I was planning to set out some questions for you to ask a mediator in order to determine if they are someone you might want to use as your mediator. However, I read an article, "Certification of Mediators Needed Now More than Ever" published in the Association of Conflict Resolution (ACR) Family Mediation News, Winter 2009, about certifying mediators which was written by Stephen Erickson of Erickson Mediation Institute , and decided to comment on this article first. Stephen Erickson is the Co-Chair of the ACR Taskforce on Mediator Certification and co-founder and second president of the Academy of Family Mediators (now merged into ACR) and is an esteemed mediation trainer and leader in the field of family mediation.
As he points out, the fundemetal and essential element of mediation is self-determination. This is the key to an agreement that is empowering for the participants!
Before the Academy of Family Mediators (AFM) merged with two other organizations to form Association of Conflict Resolution (ACR), it defined self determination as follows:
“The primary responsibility for the resolution of a dispute rests with the participants. The mediator’s obligation is to assist the disputants in reaching an informed and voluntary
settlement. At no time shall a mediator coerce a participant into agreement or make a substantive decision for any participant.”
As pointed out by the article two styles that people calling themselves mediators often use but which are not mediation because the styles do not support self-determination and actually promote coercion are:
- Evaluative processes
- Directive processes
Both of these processes usually involve the so called "mediator" giving their evaluation of some aspect of the issues and often times take place with the cleints in separate rooms; these methods fly in the face of real mediation, which is interest based and promotes self-determination. These methods are coercive and adjudicatve processes and clients generally find them to be extremely unsatisfactory.
So the first thing to ask a mediator is: Do you use a facilitave style or an evaluative or directive style?
If they say an evaluative or directive style, or if they do not know what you are talking about, call another mediator who is able to effectively mediate using a facilitative, non-evaluative style...after all...it is your life!
~Debra
2 comments:
I am a facilitative and transformative mediator (family and commercial) in NJ. I have long been a proponent that if mediation is ever to be a profession apart and distinct from its "brethren professions" (law, psychology, accounting, etc.), it needs some level of professional certification. All of the other professions have minimal standards to be a practicing member. Mediation must as well. Unfortunately, the ACR and many other organizations do not seem to have the fortitude to move that forward.
Ironically, there are many clients who need to be directed to a solution and seek that out from a "mediator". Too many mediators, retired (and current) judges do give mediation a bad name by acting as non-binding arbitrators.
Hopefully, the mediation profession will start to assert leadership and take control of ensuring quality to our clients. Here in New Jersey, the NJ Association of Professional Mediators (of which I am a director) accredits mediators. While this does not guarantee a quality mediator any more than passing an exam, there are at least some standards in place (along with an ethics review process). The public can have some level of confidence in the quality of the mediator they hire to resolve their disputes.
Marvin,
Thank you so much for your comment! I agree certification of some measurable level of capability is better than no certification. In particular certification of family and divorce mediators is critical and is getting even more of a problem. Unfortunately clients are confused. Many so-called mediators use a shuttle mediation style and couple this with an evaluative, directive approach. Somehow facilitative mediaotrs need to collaborate and get ACR to be more proactive about this issue.
When attorneys tell me they "mediate" and then tell me they usually end up in separate rooms evaluating I shutter. Something about this seems to be almost a mini-trial model, it is cetainly adjudicative, and should not be called mediation. Divorce mediation has been given a bad name because many people try to do it but do not know how to practice using a facilitative approach and it becomes down right coercive. When asked why these attorney,"mediators" separate the parties they say the clients need it....my question...who really needs it...the attorney/mediator perhaps because they do not know how to mediate when in the fire.
Thank you again for you comments!
Debra Synovec
Post a Comment