What Co-resolvers Can Do that Mediators Cannot

Bringing co-resolution from paper to practice currently seems to be a challenge of convincing established mediators and mediation programs to use this idea. While I do not mean to upset the mediation community, I would like to highlight the advantages co-resolvers have over standard mediators. (While the co-resolution system offers many overall advantages over mediation and other processes, this post will focus on the perspective of the ADR professional acting as either a mediator or co-resolver).

Unlike mediators, co-resolvers can serve as a:

1. Coach, bringing the assigned party to negotiate at their best.
2. Advocate, personally assisting the party in the negotiation (this is negotiation advocacy, NOT legal advocacy).
3. Problem-solver, contributing ideas for possible solutions to the conflict.

Before exploring these new functions, it is important to note that co-resolution and mediation perform the same basic function in guiding disputants to negotiate a resolution. The major difference between the two processes is that mediation guides the parties from an impartial position, whereas co-resolution uses partisan coaches, each supporting one of the negotiating parties and conciliating/mediating the other. And because the relationship between the co-resolvers keeps them balanced, coordinated, and fully cooperative, the co-resolution process is not harmed by its bipolar, partisan nature.

By taking sides in the negotiation, the co-resolvers are able to become more involved in the negotiation. While mediators maintain a detached level of impartiality, co-resolvers are able to contribute negotiation-advice, helpful arguments, and solutions during the interaction.

Coaching.

Mediators enhance the negotiation experience of disputants by encouraging respectful behavior, checking to see that their assertions are clear and understandable, delineating speaking time, and organizing topics of discussion. However, most mediators report that they do not coach individual parties, most likely because they must be impartial and cannot appear to be boosting one side or the other. Co-resolvers, on the other hand, are balanced rather than impartial and can coach their parties in negotiation skills.


This kind of coaching, occurring mostly in caucus or in quiet asides, would consist of procedural advice and personal motivation.
Advice from co-resolvers would focus on methods in negotiation--the strategies and skills involved in asserting your interests, selling them to the other side, hearing the other side's interests, and reaching a solution that both find agreeable. Many parties to negotiation are not comfortable with this form of confrontation, exchange, and decision-making and would therefore value the personal assistance. And because the relationship-based co-resolution structure controls their behavior, the co-resolvers will only coach their parties to use cooperative, productive methods in the interaction.
Also through their coaching function, co-resolvers are able to provide motivation throughout the negotiation. While mediators are only able to encourage resolution and conciliation, co-resolvers can push the parties to do their best in the negotiation, to fully express themselves, and to keep the negotiation alive. This personal support should bring the disputants to make fuller use of the negotiation-based interaction and to work through difficult issues where other approaches may declare impasse.


Advocacy.


Beyond enhancing each party's participation, co-resolvers are also able to directly impact the negotiation by adding their own input. This is "advocacy" in that it supports and advances one side through argument or assertion, but it is not legal advocacy.
Only available to attorneys, legal advocacy involves arguing favorable interpretation and application of the law. The type of advocacy that occurs in co-resolution, however, is focused on and contained in the negotiation. Each co-resolver can help their party's standing in the negotiation through assertions and arguments concerning positions, interests, and solutions (not necessarily anything related to the interpretation and application of the law).
Besides being different from legal advocacy in focus, co-resolution advocacy is also different in character. Instead of attacking the other side's case or promoting their side's interpretation through debate, the co-resolver will attempt to win over the other side by bringing them to connect with or have a more favorable view of their side's interests.

Though the co-resolvers should largely play a secondary role, supporting the parties as they negotiate a resolution, they are able to interject in situations where it would be helpful. For example, they may supplement their party's assertion with how it benefits the other side, diffuse an attack from the other side by adding perspective promoting their own side, and actively sell resolution to the other side. Again, the co-resolvers are able to function as partisan advocates while maintaining a dispute resolution focus and philosophy because their actions cannot offend or endanger their continuing relationship.

Mediators, on the other hand, cannot issue arguments that favor either side because it would call their impartiality into question and may cause one party to leave the table. Furthermore, even if mediators could become more involved, subconscious human bias may bring them to guide the negotiation in favor of one side (whereas co-resolvers are continually balanced by their relationship). Though mediators can advocate for resolution in general terms, their impartiality prevents them from inserting perspectives that are not internally balanced.

Problem-Solving.

Mediators can suggest solutions to problems, however, this practice is often discouraged, and co-resolvers may be better adept for this function. The problem with mediators suggesting solutions is that their ideas may offend one side and their subconscious bias may bring them to push a lopsided resolution. Co-resolvers, on the other hand, will each suggest solutions that more openly focus on their side's interests, but then through their balanced, cooperative relationship, they can amend each other's ideas to more reliably meld both side's aspirations.

Therefore, when the parties are stumped, the co-resolvers will be more comfortable with contributing ideas, bouncing them off the other side, and attempting to bring the parties into this exchange.


In conclusion, because co-resolution uses partisan negotiators to facilitate a resolution, the process is able to enhance the parties' experience with one-sided support. By splitting the mediation function--each acting as a mediator across the table only--and adding personal assistance to their own side, the co-resolvers are therefore able to do everything that mediators can do but can also venture beyond impartiality to roles such as coach, advocate, and problem-solver.

Negotiating Under Co-resolution

By creating a unique set of incentives around negotiation, co-resolution should produce a unique type of behavior in negotiation. Professionals with preconceived notions of "advocacy" and "dispute resolution" may find this new strategy to be troublesome or grating, so I will discuss in this entry the style and tone of negotiation that I imagine co-resolution will produce.


Remember, the co-resolution structure enforces cooperation across the table and loyalty from each co-resolver to their assigned party (see essay under "About" tab). Under this dynamic, the co-resolvers will be able to participate in the negotiation as coaches, advocates, and problem-solvers, while also maintaining a restrained focus on cooperation and resolution. Attorneys may have difficulty dealing with these restraints, and mediators may be uncomfortable with advocating for only one side in a dispute. However, it is possible to fully and freely operate under the co-resolution structure, protecting one side and promoting positive negotiation behavior across the table.


In order to achieve this fusion, co-resolvers should promote both powerful and amicable communication. This means that each co-resolver should focus on bringing their party to communicate their interests persuasively and compassionately, but not in a way that attacks or offends the other side.


Untrained communicators and unfamiliar negotiators often have difficulty expressing their differences without upsetting the other side or providing ammo that will later be used in a counterattack. These problems do not occur in co-resolution, because each negotiator knows that the other will not attack or undermine them and the parties are constantly coached and protected by these cooperative negotiators. Instead of being overly conciliatory or adversarial (criticisms lobbed at mediation and legal advocacy, respectively), co-resolution promotes strong, compelling messages, but packages them in a way that intends to connect with--not frustrate--the other side.



And as the flip side to this method of expression, co-resolution also promotes positive behavior in receiving communications from the other side of the table. Legal advocates may protect their clients by attacking, rather than trying to understand, assertions from the other side. Meanwhile, mediators are hindered from protecting either party by the detached impartiality that is the core of their role. In co-resolution, on the other hand, each party has a co-resolver at their side who can filter the other party's assertions in a way that mitigates offensiveness but enhances understanding. Besides rephrasing incoming communications (much like a mediator) to clarify, narrow, and translate the other's ideas, co-resolvers can also respond with positive counterpoints--arguments that counteract what the other side says without hindering communication or empathy. So when one party asserts an argument, the opposing co-resolver can bring up a parallel point that supports their side (counteracting without attacking) and can conciliate the argument by adding overall perspective. In this way, co-resolution offers protection during the negotiation that focuses on understanding and reaching resolution with the other side.



The combination of powerful and cooperative communication, described above, may be difficult to pull off if it is approached as internal balancing within each advocate. Any role will experience frustration if it is required to exercise self-restraint in implementing contradictory values (as power and cooperation often prove to be).


However, co-resolution is able to provide consistent and full strategies to follow in executing its unique approach to negotiation. First, while attorneys aim for the best negotiated deal for their client, co-resolvers aim for the best performance in negotiation by their assigned party. Second, while mediators aim for maximum party participation, co-resolvers aim for optimal party participation. Thus, like other roles, co-resolution guides its professionals with a consistent goal that may be pursued to the full extent: promoting and protecting the best experience in negotiation for the assigned party.


In summation, the professional negotiators in co-resolution should coach their parties to sell their ideas to the other side and understand the other's communications. This will bring the co-resolvers to enhance their party's power in the negotiation, while maintaining smooth dealings with the other side. And unlike mediators, co-resolvers are not restrained from ensuring this strategy of selling/understanding through their own direct participation in the discussion. Co-resolution will therefore fully enhance the negotiation experience of each party by bringing them to present their perspectives in a way that the other side will understand and by protecting them with conciliating defenses.