I prefer to describe the service I offer as dispute resolution, rather than being confined by the definition of “mediation” (although the terms are often used interchangeably). Don’t get me wrong, I am trained as a mediator and proud of the title (and I am accredited under the Australian Mediator and Dispute Resolution Accreditation Standards and have been since 2008 when accreditation started). However, I combine elements of mediation, conciliation, neutral third-party evaluation and negotiation (you can read about these terms below).
As a dispute resolver is I am an independent third-party facilitating and managing a process of negotiation, to assist people in dispute reach an agreement that resolves their dispute. The parties have to agree with the proposed solution – an outcome is not imposed (even though it might be suggested).
I believe that the effective resolution of disputes is best achieved by combining mediation, conciliation and neutral third-party evaluation, rather than adhering strictly to any one model of dispute resolution. Dispute resolution can, as Franz Fanon famously opined, be “by any means necessary”.
One sentence definitions for each of the three main processes of negotiation I have referred to above are:
Mediation – a process where parties to a dispute identify the issues in dispute, develop options, consider alternatives and endeavour to reach an agreement of their own.
Conciliation – a similar process to mediation, but a conciliator also has a role in identifying issues that are in dispute and in suggesting possible outcomes.
Neutral Third-Party Evaluation – giving expert advice on likely outcomes if the parties are not able to reach their own agreement and a court were to determine their dispute.
Finally, I believe that it is important that negotiation is “ethical”. Negotiation occurs “in the shadow of the law”, meaning that the negotiation should occur within the parameters of what a court might reasonably be expected to order. The combination of all of the above methods of dispute resolution allows a rigorous and ethical “reality testing” of each party’s position and a useful point of reference by which to weigh and consider proposals.
