Facilitative vs. evaluative mediation: differences?

[ad_1]

Mediation has become a popular form of conflict resolution for personal relationships, professional relationships, and even legal matters. Many companies and federal agencies offer their employees alternative dispute resolution (ADR) if they disagree. Provides a neutral forum for airing disagreements where an impartial third party listens and provides feedback, validation, and potential resolutions. While legally binding contracts and paperwork may result from a session, the discussion and negotiations themselves are not legally binding. This type of dispute resolution is often vastly preferred over alternatives, including court appearances or workplace disciplinary actions, although it is usually voluntary.

There are two styles of traditional mediation: facilitative and evaluative. There is also transformative mediation, a newcomer to the scene, but the two basic styles are still the mainstays and are generally preferred for dispute resolution.
facilitative mediation

This is the oldest type of mediation, popular in the 1960s and 70s. In this type of dispute resolution, the mediator works with all parties to help them reach a resolution that is agreeable to all parties involved. The mediator listens to all parties, helping the parties analyze issues and explore options that would be favorable for a resolution. While the mediator doesn’t recommend a solution, he does offer advice and even opinions regarding the potential outcome. It is the mediator’s job to prevent opposing parties from berating each other and from rambling in bitter language, resorting to name-calling and other unproductive behavior.

With this type, all parties can hear each other’s point of view in a safe environment. The mediator listens, validates the concerns and helps the parties reach a reasonable and mutually acceptable agreement.
Evaluation mediation

This type of conflict resolution is more exploratory in nature and is modeled after adjudicated resolution conferences. The mediator works with the parties to find a satisfactory solution by identifying weaknesses in their argument and also by making predictions about the reactions of a judge or jury. They may even go so far as to informally recommend case outcomes and outcomes. It is more focused on the legal aspect of the parties than personal interests and needs. As such, the evaluative mediator will be more inclined to assess issues from a legal perspective, incorporating legal concepts into the mix. In this type of mediation, there will be more of a bias towards cost-benefit analysis and other similarly structured analysis tools to guide the parties to an agreement acceptable to all involved.

Both of these styles have its advantages and disadvantages, making it crucial that the type of dispute resolution is tailored to the situation, the parties and the specific disagreement.

[ad_2]