How a Mediator Works

For many years, the choice of methods in mediation had been considered so personal, and so specific to the goals and attitudes of the individuals involved, tha t a mediator 's effectiveness seemed to defy detailed analysis. "An art, not a science" became an all-too- familiar way of dismissing the subject. The successes of the dispute resolution movement, however, made this attitude increasingly risky. If a mediator's performance could not be evaluated according to intellectually respectable standards, a growing field would have no dependable way to select those who are best suited to do this work. Furthermore, it would remain difficult to explain what a given mediator could do to improve effectiveness. Such concerns led to a 1985-86 study, in which a group of five labor mediators chosen from twenty working for the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission was observed closely to see if their sharply differentiated working styles contained any matrix of common skills and abilities. While subsequent research and deliberation has refined the initial description of the qualities needed, and while it is now clear that the c riteria will vary at least to some extent from one setting to the next, a brief account of that study's findings wil l help to show the significance of such a matrix of skills. On the surface, these mediators did almost everything differently. Initial taped interviews established that three were primarily interested in the problems of the moment, and in getting the se ttlement; two were more concerned with the parties' long-term relationship. Thus even within that one program, it became evident that some mediators were settlement- oriented while others were, in a phrase coined only several years afterwards, inclined towards the "transformative." This difference showed up in their quite disparate approaches to each of the ac tivities described below. At the time this was referred to as a matter of "style," but subsequent reflection suggests that this term failed to de lineate that the mediators involved in the study differed in their intent as well as their methods. 3 One mediator read up on comparable settlements and disputes before going to a meeting; two spent substantial time before each case discussing it with the negotiators on the telephone ; two others did almost no specific preparation. One mediator routinely used the physical environment, such as whom to sit next to in a caucus ; four at lea st professed to ignore it. Three used sideba r meetings as often as possible; two, as seldom as possible. And when asked to identify types of cases they particularly liked or disliked, no two came up with the same answer.