Mediation: Win-win alternatives for conflict resolution by Jessie Dye




(Excerpted from an article in The Foundations Of Peace (In Context #4) Autumn 1983, Page 29)

Individuals or cultures who choose complete dominance or submission are working in a win-lose mode. This promulgates violence because we are not separate, but are all part of a whole system. When one part of a system is discounted it will ultimately retaliate. This is true whether it is one of your own subpersonalities or peasants in Central America. In reality, there is no such thing as a win-lose solution. Such a solution is lose-lose, because when one part loses, all parts eventually lose. Remember the tragedy of the commons.

The only dispute resolution method which ultimately can support a sustainable culture is a win-win model of collaboration. This requires a maximum of assertiveness as well as a maximum of cooperation. It requires that individuals be willing to face each other and air their own grievances, that they listen to the other do the same, that they take the time to explore differences and options, and it requires a system that encourages this kind of win-win dialogue.

Win win solution

Conflict resolution

The mediation process compares favorably with the legal system in many respects (see table below). Because it encourages the parties to communicate with each other openly and fully, it offers psychological satisfaction not available in the limited “testimony” allowed in court. Because the parties talk until they reach a solution, it often produces a workable, satisfying result in a way not possible from an adjudicated decision. The process of mediation is cheaper, quicker, and in many cases fairer than the average lawsuit. Perhaps more importantly, mediation builds community because it encourages conversation between the parties and upholds their ongoing relationship. It does not encourage distortion of the facts to gain a “victory.”

Old and New Paradigms in Dispute Resolution

Law Mediation
Win-lose outcome Win-win outcome
Positions of the parties are adversarial Positions of the parties are cooperative
Requires extensive, expensive training and knowledge of esoteric language and systems (expert- based) Requires common sense and some training in dispute resolution (lay-person based)
Follows principles established sometimes hundreds of years ago in different setting, outcome based on precedent Works with what is reasonable to the parties in this situation, outcome based on fairness and reality-testing
Very expensive, from $50-120/hour per side Usually free with volunteer mediators; private mediators run from $50-75/hour for both parties
Prohibits conversation between the primary stake-holders to the dispute (lawyer-lawyer only) Requires conversation between the parties
Encourages distorting information to make other party wrong, “characterizing the facts”, i.e., lying Encourages truth-telling, reality-testing, recognizes that there is truth on both sides
Tends to reinforce already existing power structure Tends to equalize power between the parties, promotes justice
Often destroys possibility of any future relationship between the parties, fosters alienation Encourages on-going relationships of the parties, builds community
Frequently takes years to resolve a dispute Resolves disputes in weeks if not days
Is costly to the taxpayer – court time costs about $500/hour for administrative expenses Is relatively cheap using available space and generally volunteer mediators
Decisions made by others Solutions found by the parties

About this entry