CONFLICT MANAGEMENT The Psychology of conflict and conflict ...

10. THE ROLE OF THIRD PARTIES/MEDIATION IN MANAGING CONFLICT 303
is a powerful method of moving disputing parties toward settlement
(Levi, 1997). While transformative mediation has an intuitive appeal, it
has received scholarly criticism. Specifically, Seul (1999) took issue with
the idea that the mediator should take on the role of moral developer without
any consideration given to the parties’ current stage of moral development.
In a slightly different vein, Levi (1997) noted that, in the presence
of a “bona fide” dispute, a simple “I’m sorry” may not rectify the emotional
harm inflicted or moral mandate that was infringed upon (Kohlberg,
1981). Moreover, apologies may not always be sincere and disputants
can use public recantations as “attitude structuring tactics” in hopes of
leveraging their positions against the opponent (Pruitt, 1981). Likewise,
Gaynier (2005) contended that Bush and Folgers’s (1994) myopic dependence
on empowerment and recognition lacked any sort of realization
that resistance, conflicting interests, and mediator self-awareness all play
roles in the dispute resolution process. Finally, Kressel (2000) argued that
transformative mediation is not actually a novel idea at all. He noted that
the “hallmarks” of this type of mediation could be seen in mediators that
espouse a problem-solving style of mediation. Specifically, mediators using
a problem-solving style, as in the case of divorce mediation, can be characterized
as nonjudgmental about the disputants’ decisions, impartial, and
encouraging open and honest communication. However, comparative
studies examining clearly defined models have not yet been carried out.
Future research in this area would no doubt be fruitful.
To summarize, it is still unclear whether transformative mediation
can produce its intended effects. Additionally, we know that mediation
is not always the chosen dispute resolution tactic by both parties. Indeed,
mandatory mediation is common and has its own set of implications surrounding
the ability to change parties’ attitudes and reach settlement.
Mediator Strategy
Given the numerous stages during mediation and the distinct and
diversified subtypes of mediation, it is essential that mediators put thought
into their strategies prior to sitting down with both parties. Carnevale
(1986) laid out four possible strategies that could be selected by a mediator:
(a) integration, which involves finding solutions based on common
ground; (b) pressing, which involves encouraging parties to be less obdurate;
(c) compensation, which involves giving something back to the
party making concessions; and (d) inaction, which involves a laissez-faire
approach to the problem (see Figure 10.4). Additionally, Carnevale (1986)
outlined a model of mediator strategic choice based on five core assumptions:
(a) Mediators desire an agreement between disputants; (b) mediators
are able to use any of the four strategies; (c) mediators are willing and
driven to take action; (d) only one strategy can be utilized at a single point
in time; and (e) mediators choose a strategy based on two variables—how