After the training that was generously hosted by Community Mediation Services of Central Ohio (CMS) yesterday, I was asked how co-resolution would overlap with or apply CMS's Seven-Stage Model of Mediation.
I will first point out that there could be many styles and approaches to co-resolution. For example, some co-resolvers will prefer a fluid process that flows with the needs and direction of each case or set of disputants. The co-resolution structure is designed to create guiding incentives within the negotiation, so whatever feels natural within an interaction is likely the correct action to take. However, as dispute resolution professionals are first learning co-resolution, more structure could be helpful.
The Seven-Stage Model
The CMS Seven-Stage Model is a tightly-structured framework for mediation. It involves:
1.) Introduction
2.) Storytelling/Problem-Determination
3.) Summarizing
4.) Issue/Interest Identification
5.) Generating/Evaluating Alternatives
6.) Agreement
7.) Closure
The introduction is the initiating of the process in which the mediator explains the process and sets the ground rules.
In the storytelling phase, the mediator invites party input in and identifies problem behaviors. Problem behaviors are specific past or future behaviors that the other disputant did/did not do or will/will not do. It is important to focus the parties on the behaviors and not their interpretations of behaviors (e.g., "she is rude," "this is unfair"). The mediator then probes for the emotional effect or other effects that resulted from the problem behavior (e.g., "it sounds like that was frustrating for you," "so you're saying that this cost you time and money?").
The mediator then summarizes key information, confirming that the speaker was understood, testing the accuracy/completeness of the statements, and focusing the parties' attention on useful information. In a mathematically-precise method, the mediator then transposes the problem behaviors into "issues" that will be discussed as agenda items and the emotional/other effects into "interests" that will guide the discussion.
The mediator guides the parties through the issues, encouraging them to trade proposals or brainstorm solutions, until they reach impasse or resolution on all identified issues and interests. Finally, the mediator wraps up the process and sends the parties off with guidance and whatever agreement has been reached.
Applying the Seven-Stage Model in Co-Resolution
Like mediation, co-resolution is a process of facilitated negotiation, drawing input from the parties and then guiding an exchange of proposals for resolution. Unlike mediation, however, co-resolution
is conducted by partisan conflict coaches rather than an impartial mediator--this does not mean co-resolution cannot draw on or be structured on the Seven-State Model. While I would note that there is no "wrong" way to apply the co-resolution structure, here are some details for how a co-resolution could be conducted:
1.) The co-resolvers gather the disputants at the table, make introductions, explain the basics of the process (roles, ground rules, and caucuses), and assign a co-resolver to each disputant.
2. and 3.) The co-resolvers then ask who initiated the process, suggest that this person explain what brings them to the table (storytelling). After or as a party explains their perspective on the dispute, their own co-resolver is attempting to promote the positive aspects of the story, presenting the party in an understandable/positive light to the other side and focusing their party on important/useful elements of their case. During this time, the opposing co-resolver is asking clarifying/narrowing questions across the table.
This combination of the storytelling and summarizing phases allows the co-resolvers to draw out and analyze party input while maintaining their partisan roles. Each co-resolver should keep in mind that they are helping the assigned disputant--this will bring them to empathize with their party's perspective as it is being expressed.
4.) After both parties have expressed their perspectives, the co-resolvers will caucus with each of their assigned parties separately. This is an opportunity to solicit more input (parties are often more open and comfortable alone with their coach and away from the other disputant), identify issues and interests, and strategize a game plan for the negotiation.
5.) The co-resolvers then bring the parties back into joint session and conduct the negotiation. While strategies such as brainstorming that are available in the Seven-Stage Model can be appropriate in co-resolution, co-resolvers are not impartial and are therefore able to make suggestions, express counterpoints to the other side, and promote effective negotiation behavior by their own disputants.
6.) Just as the co-resolvers guide the negotiation as cooperative-yet-opposing coaches/advocates, the co-resolvers can also guide the creation of an agreement, making sure that the interests expressed by their respective disputants are addressed in the proposed terms.
7.) The end of the process offers an opportunity for each coach to check in with their disputant and provide parting advice on implementing their agreement and interacting with the other party. Closing is also unique in co-resolution because the co-resolvers can touch base with each other to discuss procedural matters between sessions within a dispute and air out concerns with each other's conduct at the end of the case. This debriefing helps to maintain a positive working relationship and effective strategies between teams of co-resolvers.
I hope this is helpful and look forward to further interactions with CMS.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
