Transformative Mediation: Taking a Risk and Letting Go By Andrew Thomas

Part I:

As the popularity and institutionalization of the mediation field continues to grow, and educators and academicians continue to analyze the theory that drives our practice, the more our truths and beliefs about our practice will be challenged. For years the spectrum of ADR processes, although they all involve third party intervention, were defined by key functions and
characteristics that are distinctly different from each other. Also we have developed a basic understanding of the differences or descriptive adjectives that distinguishes fact-finding from negotiation, facilitation from conciliation, conciliation from mediation and mediation from arbitration.However, with the introduction of the Transformative Mediation orientation, mediation practices are now distinguished by mediator’s beliefs, attitudes, behaviors and
intent. With the increasing popularity of Transformative mediation more and more mediators are questioning their practice and trying to comprehend the hallmarks and premise
of a Transformative orientation.

On the other hand there are a number of mediation practitioners convinced that Transformative Mediation does not work, they contend it lacks control and structure, it’s counseling and isn’t what parties are looking for. Fortunately, there are numerous studies and a wide body of research data that refute these accusations. In fact the research clearly documents that parties in mediation want exactly the kind of mediation process promoted in the Transformative orientation. In study after study when parties are asked what they liked most about the mediation process they respond; it provided them an opportunity to fully tell their story and be
heard; to deal with issues they felt were important; and to understand the others person’s point of view. As a Transformative Mediation trainer I have witnessed how difficult it is for some mediators to trust the research, take a risk and let go of old beliefs about conflict, people’s capacity to be responsive to each other and the role and goal of mediation.

Over the past fifteen years the practice of mediation has advanced tremendously and grown as a profession nationally and internationally. Although mediation continues to be used as
a universal catchall term to define a variety of third party neutral processes, a number of consumers of alternative dispute resolution services have become educated and sophisticated
enough to specify the type of mediation orientation they are looking for in mediators. Since the publishing of the of the book, The Promise of Mediation; By Bush and Folger, 1994, Jossey Bass, the practice of mediation has been heavily debated and compartmentalized. Bush and Folger suggest that with the institutionalization of mediation, mediators have come under increasing pressure to get agreement and solve problems, missing a key value of mediation which is an opportunity for personal growth, compassion for others and change in human interaction. As a result of the years of theory to practice analysis of mediation, mediators’ practice has been
compartmentalized as facilitative, directive, evaluative, narrative and transformative depending on how the mediator defines his or her third party intervention role, goal and purpose.

Recognizing the positive qualities of Transformative Mediation accepting the transformative orientation is a struggle for many mediators, because they are not willing to take a risk and let go of old beliefs. The dilemma is letting go vs. holding on to beliefs. There are some things in life that are worth holding on to e.g. positive attitude, memories of good times, positive relationships with good people and faith. Like in life, in mediation there are things you should hold on to also, for example, compassion for the process, valuing self-determination, and trust in the process.



Andrew Thomas, President
ALT Associates Conflict Management Consultants
Lake Mary, Florida
athomas@ALTassociates.com