6 Steps Structure of a Face-to-tace Mediation Meeting - by Pofessional Mediation Resolutions (PMR) Ltd

PMR: SIX STEP STRUCTURE OF A FACE-TO-FACE MEDIATION MEETING
(After mediator has had individual meetings with the parties involved)
I. INTRODUCTIONS/GROUNDRULES

• Positive welcome and affirming
• Confirm the purpose of the mediation and their wish to resolve
• Agree groundrules ie no interrupting, respect for each other
• Any questions
II. HEARING THE STORY
(Communication through the mediator)

• 'What is the issue from your point of view ?'
• Mediator listens and summarises back

III. IDENTIFYING THE ISSUES
(Communication through the mediator and together)

• Clarifying the underlying issues
• Summarise and prioritise

IV. COMMUNICATING FEELINGS
(Through the mediator and with each other)

• 'How does this make you feel ?'
• Encouraging mutual understanding and honest communication

V. BRAINSTORMING AND IDENTIFYING SOLUTIONS
(Together)

• 'What are you willing to offer towards a solution?'
• ‘What needs to happen for things to improve between you?’
• Brainstorming all kinds of possible win/win solutions
• Clarifying mutually agreed solutions
• Checking the details of the agreements

VI. SIGNING THE AGREEMENT

• Mediator writes up the voluntary agreements for parties to sign
(more unusually, agreements may be verbal only if agreed beforehand)
• A follow-up meeting is agreed at a future date with the
mediator to see how the agreements are working out

MAIN PRINCIPLES OF WORKPLACE MEDIATION

• voluntary

• solution/agreement focused

• mediator is impartial and does not take sides

• the parties themselves come up with the agreements

• confidential

• if unsuccessful, formal or legal procedures may be invoked

Advantages & Disadvantages of Mediation

Hi,

I found the following from Specialist Mediators and found it interesting. Quoted herewith for all to read. For more, please visit :

[http://www.specialistmediators.org/]

Advantages of Mediation

Advantages

There are many good reasons for taking your dispute to Mediation, not least because the courts now encourage you to, or insist that you do.

If you have no option but to submit to Mediation, why not do so at an early stage, once the facts are known and the relative strengths and weaknesses of each side's case are capable of being assessed by the legal teams?

Depending upon the point at which the Mediator is brought in, the savings on costs can be considerable. The savings are then for the Parties to share.

During the Mediation the principals meet across the table, when previously the dispute had been aired between the lawyers. That in itself might break the logjam.

A Mediator's questioning might bring out new facts, or a new way of looking at the facts.

Mediation allows the Parties to stand back and reassess their respective positions.

Time spent at Mediation by the participating executives is but one day (usually), whereas a trial is likely to take much longer. There is every reason to settle so as to avoid any further loss of management time.

As the Mediation process is both confidential and without prejudice, it would be almost as if nothing had happened if, uncharacteristically, no settlement were reached and a trial had to be held.

Any offer tabled can be withdrawn without explanation: there is almost nothing to lose in trying to reach a solution by making offers.

The Mediator is entirely neutral; so you know that at least he isn't against you.

Mediators might eventually form a view as to the correct weighting in the "who's right and who's wrong" argument; but they know better than to rely on their own judgment, particularly as it is irrelevant to their role.

The Mediator can see the strengths and weakness on both sides. The position will not be clear cut, the dispute would have settled had that been so.

The Mediator's role is not to make a judgement at all, but to apply his knowledge and experience and produce some new ideas to help the Parties reach a settlement.

A Mediator's interest is only in getting Parties to agree, he doesn't mind on what terms you do it.

An alternative is to submit one's position to a judge, but who knows what he would conclude? Is the gamble worth it?


Disadvantages

Hardly any; but it is unlikely that you will win the case outright with all costs paid. Mediation is all about compromise and usually this means settling on less than perfect terms.