First Report of the Ohio Co-resolution Project

Following the first Co-resolution Training, held in November of 2009, three highly-experienced mediators volunteered their time to conduct trial runs of co-resolution in real disputes. Susan Shostak and Randy Fisher took five cases through Marya Kolman's domestic mediation program in Columbus, and Margaret Miller and I took one case through Margaret's program in Chillicothe. The overall outcome of these efforts was educational and, for the most part, very supportive.


Susan and Randy

By surveying participants Randy and Susan found that (1) the parties always highly satisfied with their own co-resolver, (2) parties generally trusted the co-resolver on the other side, (3) parties all found the overall process to be neutral, and (4) parties were largely satisfied with the process overall. By supporting their separate parties in a fair and neutral process, without much in the way of practice with the co-resolution process, Susan and Randy have therefore demonstrated that co-resolution can work.

However, by also applying the process to different situations, Randy and Susan also learned a number of things about co-resolution. First, co-resolution is not for everyone--two parties that are not able to negotiate (to exchange ideas and solutions) will not be able to co-resolve. Co-resolution works to provide direct assistance and regulation to parties as they negotiate, but this level of support adds nothing without party participation. Also, co-resolution assistance can only go so far. Parties that need help at the negotiation table will benefit from co-resolution; however, parties that require direct assistance in their daily interactions with each other need ongoing support (a parent-coordinator or attorney). While most parties benefited from co-resolution--and one case that did not settle in mediation settled in co-resolution--there were situations that were inappropriate for either co-resolution or mediation.

As to their perceptions of the process, Susan and Randy are both non-attorney mediators, and this is important because co-resolution allows ADR professionals to play somewhat of an advocate. Randy and Susan both felt that they had rapport with their assigned party--that the parties largely seemed to appreciate the personal attention and coaching, and that the co-resolvers could challenge their own party when they were acting unreasonable. They further noted that the parties modeled their behavior on Randy and Susan's interaction with each other, and that communication flowed well around the table.

The process was, however, not without complaints. Susan and Randy indicated that they tended to fall back on their mediator-instincts, rendering the process a clone of co-mediation. By not acting as cooperative negotiators or advocates, the process became unnecessary complicated and duplicative, with the parties telling their stories to separate co-resolvers in the initial caucus and then again in the four-way session. Also, while co-resolution offers the parties coaching in conflict resolution skills, many parties want resolution more than a learning experience (the lesson here is that co-resolution is not strictly "conflict coaching + mediation"--the co-resolvers need to help the parties negotiate rather than teach them and then act as detached facilitators). Another learning experience was that, while Randy and Susan have been long term friends and co-workers, they have different mediation styles and this led to different approaches to co-resolution, which should be a balanced, symmetrical process. Despite these difficulties, Susan and Randy found value in the process and felt that it does work (I was glad that they didn't crash and burn).



Margaret and Nate

Margaret and I used co-resolution on one complex custody case that took 8 1/2 hours to resolve over the course of two sessions. One of the first observations we made afterwards is that co-resolution is not as mentally exhausting on the ADR professional as mediation--our first session was 5 1/2 hours of negotiation, and both of us felt fine at the end. This may occur because mediation requires the ADR professional to move back and forth between the parties' conflicting perceptions (while maintaining neutrality). Co-resolution, on the other hand, allowed each of us to focus on one party and use the common orientation of the co-resolvers and their balanced interaction to guide both parties in the same positive direction. Overall, Margaret felt that the process went very well and that the case would likely not have settled in mediation.


While it may be difficult for me to objectively observe the process while participating in it, I felt that it was advantageous that Margaret and I both had experience as attorneys. Co-resolution is all about enforcing positive behaviors between conflicting negotiators, and may therefore come more naturally to people who have experience negotiating.

As for other news about the Ohio Co-resolution Project: Randy, Margaret, and I presented co-resolution at the 2010 Association for Conflict Resolution national conference in Chicago. I hear that our evaluations were very positive. Currently, Susan and Randy are signing up to do more cases through Marya's program, and all five of us (including Marya) are going to do more training/discussing/role-playing to better understand the co-resolution process. More updates as events unfold.