Mediation Final
-------------------------------------------------
Question Eleven We spoke a fair amount about the issues surrounding caucusing. What is the controversy? What is your position? Explain caucusing to a new mediator. What will you say? In caucusing, the mediator meets separately with each party in the absence of the other party. Caucusing can vary greatly. It can consist of one or two short separate meeting with the mediation clients during a mediation sessions (perhaps to resolve issues, big or small, at times of impasse). Or it can be the mediation equivalent of “shuttle diplomacy,” where the mediator goes from room to room, mediating in what is essentially a continuous series of caucuses. Caucusing can be seen as a strategic intervention—allowing disputants to express feelings, views, and solutions that would not otherwise be divulged. Many issues can arise from the use of caucusing. Some mediators, myself included, feel that caucusing gives the mediator too much power to interpret messages, define issues, and engineer a result, and that these acts should be left to the parties themselves. These mediators see themselves as facilitators, with the real power held by the parties. Other mediators use caucusing routinely as a technique. They view it as an opportunity to work separately with mediation clients, to help each process the messages sent by the other party in private, to give a party individual care and attention, and to promote resolution of issues with each of the parties, privately. However, while caucusing may be useful, caucusing can interfere with the transparency of the mediation process. Neutrality and lack of bias are the most powerful tools that the mediator has to offer. These tools allows both parties to feel protected in the process, and permit the mediator to function as a conduit, accommodating the different needs and points of views of the mediation clients. When there are private conversations between the mediator and one party, the
Question Eleven We spoke a fair amount about the issues surrounding caucusing. What is the controversy? What is your position? Explain caucusing to a new mediator. What will you say? In caucusing, the mediator meets separately with each party in the absence of the other party. Caucusing can vary greatly. It can consist of one or two short separate meeting with the mediation clients during a mediation sessions (perhaps to resolve issues, big or small, at times of impasse). Or it can be the mediation equivalent of “shuttle diplomacy,” where the mediator goes from room to room, mediating in what is essentially a continuous series of caucuses. Caucusing can be seen as a strategic intervention—allowing disputants to express feelings, views, and solutions that would not otherwise be divulged. Many issues can arise from the use of caucusing. Some mediators, myself included, feel that caucusing gives the mediator too much power to interpret messages, define issues, and engineer a result, and that these acts should be left to the parties themselves. These mediators see themselves as facilitators, with the real power held by the parties. Other mediators use caucusing routinely as a technique. They view it as an opportunity to work separately with mediation clients, to help each process the messages sent by the other party in private, to give a party individual care and attention, and to promote resolution of issues with each of the parties, privately. However, while caucusing may be useful, caucusing can interfere with the transparency of the mediation process. Neutrality and lack of bias are the most powerful tools that the mediator has to offer. These tools allows both parties to feel protected in the process, and permit the mediator to function as a conduit, accommodating the different needs and points of views of the mediation clients. When there are private conversations between the mediator and one party, the