Brand instead of procedure
By this claim, the appearance of integrated mediation could be described the best way. It at least is an approach in a world where it’s hard to exactly define what mediation is. The difficult it is already to explain mediation the more difficult it is to explain what Integrated Mediation means. Too many offers are completing the confusion in conflict resolution. It is not always clear how the proceedings are differentiated, who has to stand for what and what procedure is promising the best success.
The customer is less concerned with the process of conflict resolution than with the resolution of the conflict itself. He certainly knows that the court is concerned with getting justice. But, is that really the truth? Does he know that the peace under the law is nothing else but the end of the chance to continue court proceedings? It has not that much to do with peace. Yes, the verdict will certainly be right. It is not promised that it will be fair the same time.
Without being aware of the fact, the customers actually are their own conflict managers. As far as they believe the cause of the conflict is on them, they will demand the therapist. As far as they believe the opponent is causing the conflict, they intend to demand a lawyer. In both cases, the addressed servants declare themselves responsible. Anyone who has learned how to use a hammer, will see each problem as a nail.
What always is underestimated is the complexity of the conflict and the related issues. Mostly it’s not about the problem of what is being argued. The consumer should be aware of this and always ask himself whether the chosen service or service provider can grasp the background complexity of the question at all. He should be aware that the law is only a complexity reduced to facts and legal consequences. The question therefore arises whether and how the service provider can engage in emotions and relationships. Does he have a psychological education? Does he recognize the influence of family or colleagues in the background? Can he correctly assess the dynamics of groups and processes and, above all, the resources of those affected? Does he recognize her true needs? Can he derive therefrom the potential and the benefits to be achieved? Can he judge the scope of a procedure?
There are many questions every conflict party will have to face. How can the affected people know that the professionals know the answers?
The demand for conflict resolution services has become more cumbersome for the consumer than he might think. Ultimately, he is expected to know and identify the valid and possible procedures in order to identify the appropriate service and the competence of the service provider to be measured. If he goes to court, then the lawyer is certainly the obvious service provider. But where does he go if he wants to avoid the court? Does he really believe that legal thinking can lead his court avoidance strategy to success?
The consumer should not be fooled if mediation is presented to him as a possible alternative to court. Unfortunately, it is often treated as if it was a lawyer’s domain, opening the way to fair justice. In fact, mediation is something completely different!
Mediation is different!
You can not point that out often enough. Considering that mediation seeks a solution based on utility and on mutual understanding capturing the whole complexity of the issue, comparing not just one but multiple solutions and accepting only solutions by consensus, to which everyone agrees, there is actually no alternative in sight to mediation. In any case, a comparison of mediation with the dish would be like comparing apples to pears.
The bewildering complexity also impacts mediation. Who knows what mediation stands for and who can manage it accordingly? The training certificate gives no clue for that. Also the offers confuse. Just as the word conflict can be combined with arbitrary concepts to any discipline, it is also possible to define mediation by adding words to any number of applications, to where the conflict never will follow up. We learn that the borders of those creations are not always fitting to the borders of the conflict. Nevertheless we meet constructions like systemic mediation, elder mediation, family mediation, business mediation, school mediation, court mediation, compulsory mediation, lawyers mediation, telephone mediation, shuttle mediation, …. What the customer learns is:
Mediation is not just mediation.
Mediation also is not easily combined with other services, such as consulting. The formal view of the procedures forces the service provider to confront the consumer with choice, whether he should be engaged as a lawyer or as a mediator. Which criteria will manage the selection? In case of doubt, people will intend pleading for the legal advice and the legal proceedings. It is less useful. But as far as realisation and results are concerned, it is a safe way.
Integrated mediation describes a completely different approach from the same. It becomes clear when mediation is understood not as a process in the legal sense, but as a benefit-oriented process of cognition. Then there is a mental matrix available, which of course finds itself in the mediation as a method of understanding-based dispute mediation in the legal understanding. However, the cognitive process describes a general, consensus-leading logic that can be included in other procedures and procedures. For integrated mediation, therefore, mediation is first and foremost a way of thinking that can be found everywhere, if you just want it. In the integrated mediation approach, the consumer finds a clear system, a careful handling of information and a methodology that leads him to a consensus in process-independent (in each case). Combinations are also imaginable. Legal advice or even legal proceedings like litigation can be methodically merged with mediation.
In Integrated mediation, the benefit-, consensus-oriented and meditative thinking is more important than the procedure! Thinking flows into the processes and allows their enrichment. Integrated mediation is not just a concept, model and format of mediation. It is also a nonprofit organisation that stands by its brand to ensure that the consumer can be sure that all paths to a benefit-based consensus are exhausted. Look for this brand, if you expect a quality for a consensual, benefit-oriented handling of conflicts and want to ensure that you find your way into the process leading to it: