Problem Solving and Mediation

¶ … Problem-Solving and Mediation The Problem-Solving and Decision Making Model (PSDM) is viewed as an integral part of the entire process of conflict resolution. Within this approach there is the mentality that if any conflict is approached as a more cooperative endeavor, where both parties are invested in the outcomes, then both parties are more likely to work hard and proactively in order to create a situation or outcome which will benefit them both.

"The goal becomes to do as well as possible for both the self and other, rather than to engage in the kind of destructive win-lose struggle that exemplifies competitive, contentious conflict" (Deutsch & Coleman, 2006). This is a type of cooperative approach to solving conflict which generally has to slide through four particular phases: diagnosing the conflict, identifying other possible solutions to the conflict, assessing a mutually appealing solution to the conflict, and committing to the decision and implementing it with consistency and integrity (Deutsch & Coleman, 2006).

If during the latter two stages of this process, it becomes clear that it's going to be next to impossible to find a solution which benefits both parties, then there is the obligation to return to the brain-storming and problem-solving step. The PSDM model can be appealing to so many people in that it doesn't take sides, and it encompasses a more realistic approach to helping people resolve their conflicts.

This model depends on the ability to take a more objective approach and to work in a balanced and conscientious manner to pinpointing a solution which is more likely to help the largest amount of people possible -- both parties. In this sense, the approach is more concerned with fairness and justice, than with taking the side of the person who is "more right" than the other. Another model that is worth examining is the transformative model of mediation.

This particular model does not seek to achieve an immediate resolution of an immediate problem (Burgess, 2013). Instead, this approach "…seeks the empowerment and mutual recognition of the parties involved. Empowerment, according to Bush and Folger, means enabling the parties to define their own issues and to seek solutions on their own. Recognition means enabling the parties to see and understand the other person's point-of-view -- to understand how they define the problem and why they seek the solution that they do" (Burgess, 2013).

In this sense, it's important to bear in mind that seeing and understanding does not mean taking a particular side, but rather to seek a higher level of clarity. Seeing and understanding does not mean reaching a level of empowerment and recognition but an ability "to foster the parties' empowerment and recognition, thereby enabling them to approach their current problem, as well as later problems, with a stronger, yet more open view" (Burgess, 2013).

In this sense, there is no problem with the directiveness of the mediator, as all responsibility starts to fall on the disputants, echoing some of the pillars of a more humanistic approach to mediation. Another benefit of this model is that it.