Abstract
Cycles of conflict and reconciliation, as all recognise, have long been part of the fabric of life. Jared Diamond (2013) explains how small-scale traditional societies viewed other peoples (clans and tribes) in a threefold manner. These other groups were known as friends, as enemies or as strangers, and strangers were initially perceived as being potential enemies. When conflict arose between individuals from neighbouring friendly clans, reconciliation was highly valued, since relationships with neighbours were long-term; these individuals lived their lives mostly within the same small geographic area. Furthermore, if feelings of hurt could not be ameliorated and mutually resolved, disputes would likely persist and fester. Given the closely knitted relationships inside each clan, feelings of hurt would have been likely to spread within the clan. Hence, a serious argument between two individuals from neighbouring clans could easily escalate into a dangerous destabilisation of relationships between whole clans. Thus, the mediated resolution of conflict was important in traditional societies for these two reasons, because inter-clan relationships were often life-long and individuals within any clan were embedded in strong networks of intra-group relationships. In the modern workplace, people are also bound into extended-term relationships, both intra-group and inter-group, and so the resolution of conflict, in which good relationships are recovered, may be expected to be as valuable today as it ever was amongst traditional societies. In the past three decades there has been a spread of formal mediation practice from the community and court sectors to many other fields (Beer and Stief 1997, p. 3; Kressel 2006, p. 726), including the workplace. In the UK, contemporary workplace mediation practice seems to have transferred from community and family sectors. Workplace mediation also seems to have roots in related forms of conciliation that arose, in the UK and the USA in the early to mid-twentieth century, out of governmental industrial relations policies.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
See article by Katherine Graham http://www.mediate.com/articles/GrahamKbl20150321.cfm posted 21 march 2015.
- 2.
- 3.
Camden Mediation in London practices transformative mediation. There may be others that diverge from the facilitative model.
- 4.
Touval (1975) describes how mediators known by the parties to be partial may be accepted in international/warfare disputes because of the hope that the mediator may have leverage to persuade parties to deliver on promised agreements. It is usual in commercial mediation for mediators to work with parties separately to bring their legal and contract knowledge to bear, assessing parties’ positions, giving advice and engineering a mutual face-saving compromise (far less costly than going to court). Carnevale, referenced in Chap. 2 below, also examines mediators’ motivations that may undermine impartiality. Of course mediators, like anyone else, are fallible, as explored in Chap. 7.
- 5.
<Superscript> Note that Bush and Folger reject the idea that transformative mediation may be mixed with other approaches and argue that it can only be ‘coherently practiced’ (Bush and Folger 2005, p. 45) in a pure fashion.
References
Acas (Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service). (2005). The Acas small firms’ mediation pilot: Research to explore parties’ experiences and views on the value of mediation. Acas Research Paper Ref: 04/05. London: Acas. Retrieved from http://www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=4701&q=small+firms+pilot
Acas & CIPD (Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service & the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development). (2013). Mediation: An approach to resolving workplace issues. London: Acas. Retrieved from http://www.acas.org.uk/media/pdf/2/q/Mediation-an-approach-to-resolving-workplace-issues.pdf
Beer, J. E., & Stief, E. (1997). The mediator’s handbook (3rd ed.). Gabriola Island, British Columbia, Canada: New Society Publishers.
Bush, R. A. B., & Folger, J. P. (2005). The promise of mediation: The transformative approach to conflict. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc.
CEDR. (2014). The Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution. Retrieved from http://www.cedr.com/solve/mediation/
CIPD (Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development). (2011). Conflict management: Survey report, March. Retrieved from http://www.cipd.co.uk/hr-resources/survey-reports/
Cloke, K. (2001). Mediating dangerously: The frontiers of conflict resolution. San Francisco: Jossey Bass Inc.
Diamond, J. (2013). The world until yesterday. London: Penguin Books.
Fairclough, N. (2001). Language and power (2nd ed.). Harlow, England: Longman.
Folger, J. P. (2001). Who owns what in mediation?: Seeing the link between process and content. In J. P. Folger & R. A. B. Bush (Eds.), Designing mediation: Approaches to training and practice within a transformative framework (pp. 55–60). New York: Institute For the Study of Conflict Transformation, Inc.
Gibbons, M. (2007). Better dispute resolution: A review of employment dispute resolution in Great Britain. An independent Report commissioned by DTI (Department of Trade and Industry), published on March 21. London: DTI.
Greenberg, J. (1987). A taxonomy of organizational justice theories. Academy of Management Review, 12(1), 9–22.
Kressel, K. (2006). Mediation revisited. In M. Deutsch, P. T. Coleman, & E. C. Marcus (Eds.), The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice (pp. 726–756). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc.
Kressel, K., Henderson, T., Reich, W., & Cohen, C. (2012). Multidimensional analysis of conflict mediator style. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 30(2), 135–171.
Moore, C. W. (2003). The mediation process: Practical strategies for resolving conflict (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc.
Pruitt, D. G. (2006). Some research frontiers in the study of conflict resolution. In M. Deutsch, P. T. Coleman, & E. C. Marcus (Eds.), The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice (pp. 849–867). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc.
Riskin, L. L. (1996). Understanding mediators’ orientations, strategies, and techniques: A grid for the perplexed. Harvard Negotiation Law Review, 1(7), 7–50.
Torfing, J. (1999). New theories of discourse: Laclau, Mouffe and Zizek. Oxford: Blackwell Publications Ltd.
Touval, S. (1975). Biased intermediaries: Theoretical and historical considerations. The Jerusalem Journal of International Relations, 1(1), 51–69.
Weber, R. (1990). Dialogues with scientists and sages: The search for unity. London: Penguin Arkana.
Wight, C. (2009). Science, discourse and materiality: What’s material about an economy with no money? Paper given at Political Economy, Financialization and Discourse Theory Conference held at Cardiff University, May 28–29. Retrieved from http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/carbs/conferences/pefdt09/index.html
Zizek, S. (2008[1989]). The sublime object of ideology. London: Verso.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2016 The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Seaman, R. (2016). Introduction. In: Explorative Mediation at Work. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-51674-9_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-51674-9_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-137-51672-5
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-51674-9
eBook Packages: Business and ManagementBusiness and Management (R0)