AFCC Workshop Presentation

AFCC, 5/09 Claudia E. Cohen, Ph.D. & Tiffany S. Butts, MA 1

A “Mediation Style” Inventory:What is “Style” and Why Does It Matter?

Claudia E. Cohen, Ph.D.Tiffany Butts, M.A.

46th Annual AFCC ConferenceNew Orleans, LA

May 30, 2009


Agenda

Exploring Mediator Style: What is style and why is it important?

Mediation Style Inventory (MSI): Identify your mediation style

Literature Review: Mediator Style Academic and practitioner literature review

Mediation Style Study (Kressel, Butts, Cohen, and Reich, in

preparation)


Agenda (cont.)

MSI Style Reflection Groups: Discussion re: how style impacts your mediation

practice

Current Research on Mediator Style: Results of national study of mediator style

(Butts, 2009)


What Does “Mediator Style” Mean to You?

Is “mediator style” a topic of discussion among you and your colleagues?

Do you have a sense of what your style is?

If you do, what is based upon? How do you know?

Are you conscious of your style during a mediation session? Refer to it?


Mediator Style Defined

Mediator style has been defined as:

a) a set of strategies and tactics that characterize how a mediator will approach a case

b) as the role a mediator perceives him/herself to play in the mediation of a conflict.

(Kressel et al.,1994; Coltri, 2004)


Why is Style Important?

Mediator style is believed to influence:

the process and outcomes of a mediation.

the disputing parties’ satisfaction with the session.


The Mediator Style Inventory (MSI)

The MSI is comprised of twenty statements describing a mediator’s attitudes, behaviors and goals.

Think about the approach that you use in the majority of the cases you mediate.

Reflect on what you actually do in session; not your idealized approach.

Using this scale below, indicate how well each item describes your approach :

Describes my approach

very poorlyDescribes my approach

very well

1 2 3 4 5


The Mediator Style Inventory (MSI)

Identifying Your Mediation Style Enter the total style score (from p. 1) in the first box on p. 2.

Divide your total score for each style by 5 and enter the result in the second box on p. 2.

Now rank the styles from highest to lowest (1= highest; 4 = lowest)

Your highest score represents your default style (i.e., your self-report of the style you use most frequently in your sessions.)

Your lowest score represents the style you are least likely to use in session.


Previous Research on Mediation Style

Empirical research has demonstrated that different mediation styles exist

Research methods have included: Observational studies Case studies Questionnaires

Reported results: Frequencies of different mediator behaviors Circumstances under which various mediator behaviors are

used How mediator behavior relates to the outcomes of mediation


Previous Research on Mediation Style

Research gained insights about “bottom up” mediator behavior, but learned little about the “top down” thinking behind tactical choice

“Top down” cognition is central to expert performance in many domains (i.e., mediator as expert)


Mediators as Domain “Experts”

Experts: get the “big picture” (i.e., top down thinking) notice subtle cues and patterns rely on implicit cues

Expert mediators seem to operate like other domain experts, they

recognize patterns that novices do not develop and argue about top down styles

Studying “top down” mediator style is likely to be productive and of use to practitioners.


Mediator Style Study

In this study 22 mediators were asked to mediate the “angry roommates conflict.”

Mediator levels of experience: 17 experienced mediators

Nearly half had > 10 years of experience Mediated in a wide range of conflict domains Various training backgrounds

5 novice mediators Second & third year Rutgers University law students Mediation training as part of legal education


The “Angry Roommate Dispute”

Simulated dispute between two female roommates at Rutgers University

Each mediator had 30 minutes to meet with disputants

Mediators were told to mediate as they would in an actual conflict.

Mediator Style Study (cont.)



Analysis

Three independent observers rated each mediator’s behavior

Observers used the Global Evaluation of Mediation Scale (GEMS)

Comprised of five stylistic descriptions of mediator behavior

Observers asked to rated similarity of the mediator’s behavior to each of five descriptions

Used 7-point Likert scale


Mediator Style Study (cont.)Analysis



Analysis

Observers also wrote “stylistic narratives”

Narratives described each mediator’s: explicit and implied goals for the mediation behavior used to accomplish their goals rationale behind their performance


Using the GEMS and the narratives, mediator behavior was categorized into one of the following four styles:

Evaluative Mediators Facilitative Mediators Latent Cause Mediators Transformative Mediators


Results


Evaluators (n = 5)

Critique and evaluate the parties’ positions

Use pressure tactics to induce agreement

Focus on issues as presented by the parties (i.e., no probing of any underlying causes that could be fueling the conflict)


Results



Results

Facilitators (n = 11)

Avoid critiquing the parties’ positions

Avoid using pressure tactics to induce agreement

Focus on issues as presented by the parties (i.e., no probing of any latent causes that could be fueling the conflict)

Attempt to create an atmosphere where each party feels comfortable

Encourage the parties to brainstorm possible solutions



Results

Latent Cause Mediators (n=2)

Emphasize quality problem–solving rather than agreement per se

Actively seek to understand when, why and how the parties have become polarized

Propose solutions based on diagnostic understanding



Results

Transformative Mediators (n = 4)

Emphasize dialogue, not agreement

Actively summarizes each party’s reactions and perceptions

Refrain from proposing any solutions to the parties



Results

This study has:

confirmed the stylistic variation found in the “bottom up” empirical literature

identified styles that correspond to those found in the field studies



Empirical and Practitioner Literature

Evaluative Style Kolb (1983) Brett, Dreighe & Shapiro

(1986) Silbey & Merry (1986) Baker & Ross (1992) Riskin (1996) Wood (2004)

Latent Cause Style Kressel et. al (1994) Kressel & Gadlin (2006) Kressel (2007)

Facilitative Style Kolb (1983) Riskin (1996) Wood (2004)

Transformative Style

Folger & Bush (1996) Wood (2004)



Points to remember:

Styles identified in this study meant to represent default or typical mediation style

A mediator’s style can still be flexible –not “locked” into using same style for every mediation


MSI: Group Discussion

Break into groups based upon your highest MSI score

Select a facilitator, time-keeper and scribe

Wait for further instructions



Discussion Questions: Were you surprised by your score on the MSI?

Why or why not?

How is your style effective in resolving disputes in your field(s) of practice (e.g. family, divorce, custody, child – parent mediation? ) What challenges do you face using your style preference?



Discussion Questions (cont.): Which behaviors and techniques you favor?

Which do you avoid?

What do you believe lead to the development of your mediator style preferences?


Recent Mediation Style Research

Approach to Mediation Survey (ATMS)

The ATMS is unique because it attempts to create a psychometrically valid instrument to measure mediation style.



ATMS is comprised of items that describe mediator behaviors, goals and attitudes towards mediation practice based on the styles found in the previous study.

ATMS items include: Evaluative, Facilitative, Latent Cause, and Transformative.



Scale Items Evaluative Item:

The mediator may need to move parties off unreasonable or overly rigid positions by asking hard questions or providing accurate, realistic information.

Facilitative Item: A mediator should try to draw on the parties’ commonalties in order to help them reach

agreement.

Latent Cause Item: Where possible, I will assist solution generation by making the parties aware of hidden

feelings or circumstances that have caused their conflict.

Transformative Item: It is important that a mediator emphasize other outcomes of mediation besides the

narrow goal of reaching settlement.



Participants= 361 professional mediators

Gender: 201 women and 156 men

Age: 41% between 51 and 60 years old

Educational Background: 45% had a Juris Doctor and 25% had Master’s Degrees

Degrees: Law (49%) Social and Behavioral Sciences (14%) Conflict Resolution (8%)



Training 65% (n= 233) were trained in a specific

approach/philosophy of mediation: 44% (n=102) Facilitative Mediation 18% (n=42) Facilitative and Transformative

Mediation 15% (n=34) Transformative Mediation 2% (n=5) Evaluative Mediation

Experience 27% = 1 to 5 years experience 22% = 6 to 10 years experience 39% = 11 to 20 years experience



ATMS Highest Style Score 46% (n=165) Facilitative 31% (n=133) Transformative 12% (n=43) Evaluative 9% (n=34) Latent Cause 2% (n=6) Two Styles



AFCC participants (n =13)

ATMS Highest Style Score 46% (n=6) Transformative 23% (n=3) Latent Cause 15% (n=2) Facilitative 8% (n=1) Evaluative 8% (n=1) Two Styles



Correlates of Mediator Style:

Gender

Pressure to Reach an Agreement

Disputing Parties’ Relationship



Style Score and Gender?

Literature suggests that gender may influence degree of emphasis on relational issues of conflict (i.e., probing for and/or attempting to help parties reconcile relational issues.)

Women= more aware of the parties’ relationship and perceive

conflict resolution as only part of the relationship (Kolb and Coolidge, 1991)

place more emphasis on the interpersonal aspects of negotiations (Kray and Babcock, 2006)

tend to use more relational arguments (based on interpersonal responsibility) when negotiating (Malach-Pines, Gat, and Tal, 1999)



Style Score and Gender?

Prediction: Women will be more likely to use Latent Cause and Transformative styles while men will use Evaluative and Facilitative styles.



Style Score and Work Environment?

There is suggestive evidence that mediator style is shaped in important ways by the social context in which mediators work (Kolb, 1983; Kressel & Gadlin, in press; Silbey & Merry, 1986)

Social context creates the cultural framework that makes up a mediator’s work environment

A mediator’s work environment influences mediator thinking and therefore affects mediator behavior (Herman, 2006)




To assess work environment, the Work Environment Index (WEI) was created

The WEI was designed to measure 5 aspects of social context: mediator embeddedness pressure to reach an agreement opportunity to consult with colleagues types of issues mediated; and the nature of the disputing parties’ relationship with each other

Preliminary analyses show a relationship between mediator style and:

pressure to reach an agreement the disputing parties’ relationship with each other




Pressure to Reach an Agreement

A few studies have shown that time pressure influences mediator behavior (see Carnevale, O’Connor, and McCusker, 1993 for

a comprehensive review).

The main finding has been that when under such pressure mediators tend to use more pressure tactics to reach an agreement:

(Carnevale & Conlon, 1988; Kressel & Pruitt, 1989; Ross & Wieland, 1996)

reminding parties of the costs of non-settlement threats of punishment reduced benefits




Pressure to Reach an Agreement Prediction: In the absence of perceived pressure to reach an

agreement mediators will be more likely to use a facilitative, latent cause, or transformative mediation style. When present, mediators will be more likely to use an evaluative mediation style.




Disputing Parties’ Relationship

Latent Cause Style Kressel (2007) cited that an latent cause approach to

mediation is partly a product of regularly mediating disputes wherein the parties have an on-going relationship.

Transformative Style Transformative mediation has been referred to as

“relationship-centered” mediation. Fostering empowerment and recognition, is believed to

enable the parties to approach their current problem, as well as later problems (suggests on-going relationship).




Disputing Parties’ Relationship Prediction: When the majority of the cases mediated involve parties that have a

continuing relationship beyond mediation, mediators will be more likely to use a latent cause or transformative mediation style.


Relevance to Practitioners

This research program has:

Shown more evidence that different styles of mediation exist

Developed initial tools for practitioners to reflect on their style


References

Baker, C. & Ross, W. H. (1992). Mediation control techniques: A test of Kolb’s “Orchestrators” vs. “Dealmakers” model. International Journal of Conflict Management, 3, 319-340.

Brett, J.M., Drieghe, R. & Shapiro, D.L. (1986). Mediator style and mediation effectiveness. Negotiation Journal, 2, 277-285.

Carnevale, P. J. & Conlon, D. E. (1988). Time pressure and strategic choice in mediation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 42, 111-133.

Carnevale, P. J., O'Connor, K. M. & McCusker, C. (1993). Time pressure in negotiation and mediation. In Svenson, O. & Maule, A. J. (Eds). Time pressure and stress in human judgment and decision making. New York, NY: Plenum Press, p. 117 – 127.

Coltri, L. S. (2004). Conflict diagnosis and alternative dispute resolution. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Folger, J. P & Bush, R. A. (1996). Transformative mediation and third-party intervention: Ten hallmarks of a transformative approach to practice. Mediation Quarterly, 13, 263-278.


References

Herrman, M. S. (2006). Introduction. In Herrman, M. S. Handbook of Mediation: Bridging theory, research and practice. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, p. 3 – 18.

Kray, L. & Babcock, L. (2006). Gender in negotiations: A motivated social cognitive analysis. In Thompson, L., Negotiation theory and research. Madison, CT, US: Psychosocial Press, 203-224.

Kressel, K. & Kolb, D. (1994). The realities of making talk work. In D. Kolb, When talk works: Profiles of mediators. San Francisco: Jossey Bass, p. 459 – 493.

Kressel, K. (2006). Mediation revisited. In Deutsch, M., Coleman, P. T. & Marcus, E. C., The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice. San Francisco: Jossey Bass, p. 726 – 756.

Kressel, K. (2007). The strategic style in mediation. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 24, 251-284.

Kolb, D. (1983). The mediators. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.


References

Kolb, D. & Coolidge, G.G. (1991). Her place at the table: A consideration of gender issues in negotiation. In Rubin, J.Z. & Breslin, J.W. Negotiation theory and practice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Program on Negotiation, p. 261 – 277.

Malach-Pines, A.,Gat, H., and Tal, Y. (1999). Gender differences in divorce mediation. Sihot/Dialogue: Israel Journal of Psychotherapy, 13, 231-239.

Riskin L. L. (1996). Understanding Mediators' Orientations, Strategies, and Techniques: A Grid for the Perplexed, Harvard Negotiation Law Review, 1, 7-51.

Ross, W. H. & Wieland, C. (1996). Effects of interpersonal trust and time pressure on managerial mediation strategy in a simulated organizational dispute. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 228-248.

Silbey, S.S. & Merry, S.E. (1986). Mediator settlement strategies. Law and Policy, 8, 7-16.

Wood, J. (2004). Mediator styles: subjective descriptions of mediators. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 21, 437-450.


Presenter Contact Information

Claudia E. Cohen, Ph.D.International Center for Cooperation & Conflict Resolution

Teachers College, Columbia University, [email protected]

Tiffany Butts, M.A.Department of Psychology

Rutgers University – Newark, [email protected]

AFCC Workshop Presentation

Documents