Conflict or disputes are inevitable in a mans relationships. Disputes exist between children, parents, neighbors, ethnic, fellow workers, organizations, communities, and even the government. Because conflict is pervasive, persons seek ways of resolving their disputes. Policies and rules need efficiency, satisfactory methods, keeping up relationships, minimizing suffering, and controling expenses. The subjects involved have various channels to solve their conflicts. The available options depend on the criteria addressed. This paper examines the various mediation concepts applied in disputes. It also explores in-depth analysis of dispute between parties and aspects of mediation that would enable the subject to solve the dispute. The legal and ethical issues to discuss during disputes are also focused on in the paper.
The description of mediation concept in general outlines the work of mediators and the concepts used to help subjects in reaching agreements. However, solving dispute in various forums and situations has led to different rules and roles A successful mediation involves communication, negotiation, and honesty (Weir, 1996).
Mediation process has various stages. Pre-mediation stage enables the subjects to mediate. The key to mediation is making the parties to sit and agree on an issue. Another stage is contracting; this involves the parties listening to each others cause of conflict. At this stage, the mediator controls the process. The mediator is allowed to interrupt. It is at this stage that the mediator gathers issues of the conflict. In developing issues, each person is given a chance to give his issues. The mediator listens, understands, and seeks clarification (Weir, 1996).
The third stage is resolving the dispute. The mediator explains to the parties the findings and anything of importance discussed at this stage. It also involves parties coming into contact. The fourth stage is reaching an agreement. It is always important to develop and find a resolution for a dispute; occasionally, this is attained by various techniques such as brainstorming. Each discussed option is evaluated, chosen, and reviewed. The most important phase is making the conclusion after reading, thinking, and clarifying options; the parties come up with a verdict. This becomes the solution for the dispute (Noone, 1996).
Organizations and communities consider mediation as undisputed approach for resolving disputes. Mediation is informal; the third subject assists the disputing parties to arrive to an acceptable agreement. The community encourages using mediation as policy in resolving disputes. In any given relationship conflict is undisputed. Such disputes are normally solved informally (Weir, 1996).
In case of the conflict between Singson and Whittamore, Whittamore was the employee of Dr. Richard Singson at Fair View clinic. The conflict had a variety of components including the employer and employee relationship, employee and employee relationship, employee and patient conflict. The parties in the dispute have various alternatives to resolve their disputes. The conflict that existed between Singson and Whittamore was technical. Whittamore avoided handling the dispute until Andrew was almost leaving. Singson steered an informal resolution, but it was fruitless. This problem now became a dispute. Andrews relationship with others involved relationship with his fellow employees at the clinic, the dispute between the patients and the clinic, and Andrews relationship with his employer (Weir, 1996).
Winning management strategy is significant, because it results in creative solutions that are satisfactory to both parties. Whittamore had various options: stay in the city close to his children and reconcile with his spouse, leave Richards clinic with paying for the breach of contract or set up a medical facility in the city after leaving Richards clinic. Winning strategy for Singson was to keep Andrew, because he was competent and had a perfect rapport with the patients; Singson had to gain revenues from Andrews efforts. Singson wanted to lead medical industry in the market. Another strategy was to avoid as much as possible the cost in employing a new medic. In this case, conflict mediation was necessary (Noone, 1996).
Some communities may need arbitration, mediation or both for solving some disputes. Without compulsory mediation provisions, legal frameworks need the subjects in a law suit to take part in some mediation process before forwarding for trials. Mediation in a court of law may involve a brief discussion with an arbitrator already selected by the court. Mediation in a supreme court is much involving. The subjects agree mutually to a mediator and send confidential separately, a detailed statement before the mediator. This kind of mediation takes days and months before a trial (Noone, 1996).
The most vital feature of mediation is its confidentiality which Colorado statute provides. Confidentiality allows the subjects candid, open, and creative methods in handling solutions without any concern that concessions might be used against court proceedings. Consequently, mediation benefits include the direction which the policies give to the subjects about the outcome. The agreement in mediation is creative and far-reaching. Additionally, courts of law focus on monetary damages, injunctions, legal or illegal acts which are enforceable and biased on one party. Such exclusions hinder the solutions. Mediation does not jeopardize the enforceable measures (Noone, 1996).
This mediation is an agreement and a contract. Their proceedings guide action of court if one of the subjects fails his obligation in the contract. The fact that mediation is not officially driven makes it cheaper and faster than handling the case in court. The disputing subjects still have the right for court if mediation is not successful. The parties in dispute will not come to the consensus if one of the parties is only willing to send a message, seek confrontation, and does not have the zeal to decide or lacks the ambition to concede. The legislation and the courts of law uphold mediation (Weir, 1996).
Selecting a competent mediator is a crucial feature of the mediation process for complicated disputes. Mediators are of three general types recognized by relationship they are in contact with the subjects and parties: authoritative mediators, independent mediators, and social network mediators. The relationship between the disputant and the intermediary influences the type of influence in helping the parties. Every culture has its own type of mediator. Their degree differs in terms of their development. Independent mediators need to settle this issue. The subjects are aware that resolving an issue is to come up with a mutual agreement. The work of a mediator is not to make decision for the subjects; neither will he offer financial, therapeutic or legal advice. The subjects seek advice independently (Noone, 1996).