MLDR 6175 Week 6 Transformative Mediation Plan Example

Why the Managing Director Stays Out of the Room: A Mediation Plan for Two Theater Department Heads That Chooses Transformative Over Facilitative Practice and Admits What That Choice Costs in Speed

Student Name

Walden University

MLDR 6175: Managing, Mediating, and Resolving Conflict

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

Why the Managing Director Stays Out of the Room: A Mediation Plan for Two Theater Department Heads That Chooses Transformative Over Facilitative Practice and Admits What That Choice Costs in Speed

Choosing the Approach

I am the general manager of Lantern Hall Theater Company, and the managing director has asked me to mediate between our production manager, Owen Brandt, and our development director, Celia Marsh, after their August 17 negotiation reached only a partial agreement on the October gala and none on future bookings. Two broad approaches were available. Facilitative mediation would steer the parties toward a settlement of the calendar question, with me structuring the discussion, testing options and helping them reach a written agreement. Transformative mediation, as Bush and Folger (2005) describe it, aims instead at empowerment, each party's sense of their own capacity to decide, and recognition, each party's acknowledgment of the other's situation. The mediator follows the parties rather than steering them.

I have chosen the transformative approach. Owen and Celia will share a calendar for years, and the August 4 staff meeting showed that their working relationship, not only the October dates, has been damaged. A settlement reached because I steered them to it would leave that untouched. The cost is speed: a transformative session may end without any agreement on October, and invitations go to print on September 1. To manage that cost, the managing director has agreed that if no agreement on October exists by August 28, he will decide the October question alone, leaving the longer-term booking process to the mediation.

Before the Session

Separate intake conversations come first, about forty-five minutes with each head, on August 20 and 21. In each, I will explain the approach, ask what each wants from the session and what they are worried about, and ask what they would need to feel heard. Kressel (2006) describes pre-session contact as one of the mediator's main tools for building trust and identifying issues. I will not carry messages between them.

The managing director will stay out of the room. Both heads report to him, and he has ruled on booking disputes before. With him present, each head would speak to him rather than to the other, and any discussion would turn into a renewed appeal for a ruling. His role is to set the August 28 deadline and to receive whatever the parties agree.

Session Plan

The order of accounts is the parties' choice. If they cannot agree, I will suggest a coin toss rather than decide myself, because choosing would signal whose account I consider primary.

Ground rules will be drafted jointly rather than presented. I will offer two as starting points, one person speaks at a time, and remarks from the August 4 meeting may be discussed but not repeated as accusations, and ask what they would add or change.

Table 1

Session Plan for the Wednesday, August 26 Morning Session in the Board Room

Composite theater. Times are guides; the parties may extend segments.

Seating, Caucus and Exit

The parties will sit across a corner of the table, not directly opposite each other, which allows them to look at each other or at a shared copy of the calendar. Either party may ask for a private caucus at any point. In caucus, I will not reveal what the other has said and will ask only what they want to say next or need from the session. Either party may end the session; if one does, I will ask whether they would meet again and record the answer.

What Counts as Success

Under a facilitative approach, success would be a written agreement. Under the approach chosen here, success has three signs. First, each head can state the other's main concern in terms the other accepts. Second, each has made at least one decision in the session that they own, such as agreeing to meet again or proposing a calendar rule. Third, they have decided for themselves what happens next. A settlement on October would be welcome but is not required, since the managing director's deadline covers it. Wall and Dunne (2012), reviewing mediation research, describe how widely mediators differ in how hard they push toward settlement, which is why a session run on the transformative model should not be judged by a settlement count; defining success in advance protects it from that misreading.

Risks

The main risk is that the session reopens the August 4 hostility without resolving it. My intake conversations are the first safeguard, and the caucus is the second. The other risk is that the deadline pushes the parties toward a quick split that neither owns. I will name that risk aloud at the opening, so both know the October question has a backstop and the session can focus on their working relationship.

References

Bush, R. A. B., & Folger, J. P. (2005). The promise of mediation: The transformative approach to conflict (Rev. ed.). Jossey-Bass.

Kressel, K. (2006). Mediation revisited. In M. Deutsch, P. T. Coleman, & E. C. Marcus (Eds.), The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice (2nd ed., pp. 726-756). Jossey-Bass.

Wall, J. A., & Dunne, T. C. (2012). Mediation research: A current review. Negotiation Journal, 28(2), 217-244. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1571-9979.2012.00336.x