What has become known as the dual concern model of conflict management was originally developed in the 1960s. The two that were identified were concern for self and concern for others. These described a person’s style of conflict management in terms of a high concern for one’s self and a low concern for the other. This was later refined in the 1970s to identify five styles of conflict management:

1.) conflict avoidance (low concern for self and for others)

2.) competition (high concern for self and low concern for others)

3.) accommodation (high concern for others and low concern for self)

4.) compromise (some degree of concern both for self and others);

5.) collaboration (high concern for self and for others).

An understanding of the dual concern model of conflict management can guide mediators or others helping individuals in conflict.

It’s long been understood that we only get into what is considered realistic conflict with those whom we have a relationship. An example of a non-realistic conflict is road rage. The parties do not know each other and have no relationship as individuals. Conflict between people who are in a relationship can vary depending on the importance of their conenction. A conflict between a consumer and a merchant does have a relationship dimension, but it is usually a weak relationship since the consumer can easily go elsewhere and the merchant can attract new customers. A conflict between business partners or between family members can be much more intense as the relationship is perceived to be special and not easily replaced. In fact, it is recognized that our most intense conflicts are with the people we care about the most.

How is this important to mediators? If the conflict is between parties with a weak and easily replaceable relationship, if the parties want to work toward a settlement they will typically move to trying to find a compromise solution. Probably neither party got everything they wanted, but they didn’t lose everything either. That’s acceptable to most people as a way to resolve the issues and move on.

The weakness of compromise as a dispute resolution strategy was long ago illustrated by Mary Parker Follett, an early, leading management consultant and the first woman to address the London School of Economics. Her example was simple: Assume you have two sisters fighting over an orange. The simple compromise solution is to cut it in half. But she points out a better way is to ask each sister why she wants the orange. One says she wants the rind for flavoring a cake; the other says she wants the pulp for its juice. In this case, the collaborative solution is simply to give one sister the rind and the other sister the pulp. They both come out total winners. Follett was an advocate for what became commonly known as collaboration.

In mediation, then, when the parties are in a long-term, strong relationship, a compromise solution may not be the most desirable one. Rather, it could repair and strengthen their relationship to help the parties find a collaborative solution so that both parties are satisfied. Collaboration results in a high degree of concern for both one’s self and the other party.

Parties in long term, important relationships range from neighbor-neighbor disputes to family squabbles to small business disagreements. As I tell my students, collaborative solutions are not always easy, but the benefits can be worth the effort.

As I wrap up the training program for volunteer mediators I had mentioned in my previous post, I want to share more about what tends to be challenging to learn for those taking the course.

As successful professionals, they are all skilled at asking questions, but two styles of questioning they’re most comfortable with aren't best suited for mediators to use. 

Some have become comfortable asking investigative style questions. They have the expertise to ask the questions that would reveal "what actually happened." And based on past experience, they want to learn as much as they can before moving forward. I usually point out to my students that more likely than not each side in the dispute has a clear idea of "what happened" and that those stories will contradict. It's not the mediator's role to make determinations because the mediator is not a judge or problem solver. It's not the mediator's role to determine who is "right" and who is "wrong." It's the mediator's role to help the parties focus on the future, that is, where they want to go from the present and not to rehash the past.

Some successful professionals are skilled at interrogation style questions. That is, based on their own past experiences they have a theory of what occurred. Their questions tend to be phrased in a way to confirm their theory and gain an admission of guilt or blame. Again, that's not the mediator's role. The mediator helps the parties move beyond "what happened" to "where are we going to go from here."

So what styles of questions should the mediator use? Those who prepare others to be mediators may differ here, but I will share the styles of questions I stress.

First, the mediator should ask open-ended, neutral questions that encourage the person to share more information and to clarify what had already been said. Note that the audience for what is being said is more the party's opposition than the mediator’s. I often say that in mediation each party having the uninterrupted time to "have their say" is often the most valuable part of the mediation because the opponent now has the opportuntiy to potentially hear the other party's point of view and motivating interests. I almost always ask each party in turn one simple question: "So what would you like to see happen to today's mediation?" More often than not their opponent is surprised to hear what the objective is. And so often a disputant will say, "I just want to get this resolved." That answer is often a surprise to their opponent and a begining point for meaningful discussion.

Second, the mediator can ask questions that encourage the parties to think creatively. People are creative but sometimes need the encouragement to be so. Many learning to become mediators often see their role as helping disputants solve problems by telling them what to do. That is not the mediator's role. It is the mediator's role to help the parties become more creative problem solvers. As a result, when disputants are arguing over a dollar amount, one party will tell me in caucus that they simply don't have the resources to make that payment at that time. All I need to say is, "I understand you don't have the cash now, but are there other ways you could satisfy that?" Suddenly the disputant begins thinking in terms of payments or cash equivalents. I didn't tell them to do that; I just encouraged them to think of alternatives. 

I suggest to people learning mediation that it is an art form and like art the skills that go into it are often not obvious. If disputants leave a session feeling they solved their problem and ultimately didn't need the help of a mediator, I would say that the parties probably weren't aware of the mediator's skillful use of the art.

In other words, if they walk away thinking, "The mediator just asked us questions. We did all the work," then the mediator likely did their job effectively.