Mediation: Both Effective and Unsatisfying

Conflict Resolution Quarterly recently printed an article in which it was shown, through rigorous quantitative analysis, that mediation is able to bridge emotional understanding between parties and that the process is, regardless, unsatisfying.

The article, "Exploring the Role of Emotion in Conflict Transformation," was written by Jameson et al and was published in the recent winter issue. In order to explore emotion in dispute resolution processes, the authors' study compared the emotional affect (how the parties felt about each other) before and after mediation and negotiation.

The hypothesis was that parties in mediation (as compared to negotiation) would feel greater empathy for each other, feel less animosity, feel that their concerns were addressed, and have a higher level of satisfaction. Basically, the study would demonstrate that mediation is better than negotiation because it is able to address emotion.

What the study found, however, was both counter intuitive (to the authors) and supportive of co-resolution theory. While the parties in mediation reported having more positive and less negative emotion, the parties in negotiation experienced higher satisfaction with the process. So, unless they masochistically prefer negative emotions, the parties preferred to negotiate rather than act through an intermediary.

The reason that this study would support co-resolution over mediation is that co-resolution impacts party participation by guiding it in positive directions rather than passing it through an intermediary. Co-resolution uses two negotiation coaches that reliably promote principled negotiation behaviors. In comparison, a single mediator has control of the process and acts as a filter in restraining certain behaviors in the negotiating parties. While the mediator's overall impact may improve party participation, neither party should feel that the mediator is supporting or enhancing their participation (because this would violate neutrality).

So mediation primarily works by restraining the parties, and co-resolution primarily works by enhancing the parties.

First, a quick note on how co-resolution is able to do this (it's more complicated than just employing two ADR professionals). Unlike any other dispute resolution process, co-resolution employs partisan negotiators (co-resolvers) who work against each other as advocates/coaches for opposing parties, but work together as ongoing partners in a single dispute resolution service. Under this unique tension, the co-resolvers have a controlling incentive to act amicably and cooperatively (because their working relationship is on the line), but must also loyally support separate parties (because either party can fire both co-resolvers by merely walking away from the negotiation). As a result, the parties get loyal negotiation coaches that will enhance their performance in the negotiation, but only in positive, interest-based directions.

Thus, co-resolution achieves the same outcome as mediation--bringing the parties to use productive, Getting-to-Yes negotiation methods--but does so through personal, partisan assistance rather than the control of a neutral, detached third party. In reaction to the results of the above study, I would therefore predict that co-resolution would be able to achieve the transformative, emotion-focused effects of mediation while also producing the satisfaction found in negotiating without an intermediary.