Just doing mediation, how can that work if mediation is not the demanded procedure?
- The first approach is to see the world from the customer’s point of view. Thus the procedure must fit to the conflict. Fit the form to the fuss is our motto.
- The second approach is to exceed the mediation over its borders by virtualizing the process.
Exceeding the mediation means to understand the different connotations of mediation. In practice and though legal definitions, the word mediation is used in several different meanings. It is quite associative and everybody has his ideas when talking about mediation. “I mediated this conflict”, doesn’t mean that a mediation (in its formal understanding) took place. German law defines mediation as to be a procedure but already in the next section of the law you will find the word mediation-procedure in combination. This doubling wouldn’t be necessary when the term is unique and connoted with one single meaning. Indeed the German law now differs between procedure and methods. The “Güterichter”, who is the judge mediator, is not doing the mediation (in the sense of conducting a formal mediation, where the procedure is called mediation) but he is doing the mediation by using it’s methods. This looks confusing at the first glance. At the second glance we find a systematic behind. It helps dealing with all those different manifestations of mediation. We drafted a plan, where you will find the variety of mediation in a proper order.
The main approach coming out of that is to differ between formal mediation (that is the pure mediation running in an isolated procedure), formal mediation according to the law (that is the pure mediation which is addressed by the law) and substantial mediation (all the other forms where mediation is happening independently from the formal procedure below). What all those different processes and appearances have in common is the idea of mediation realizing the process mediatively.
The key is to understand mediation as a cognition process. A cognition process runs in brains only. This is the chance where we can start dissolving mediation from its chains. We learned to decline this process in sub-processes, that we called functional units. Easy to imagine that small units can be moved and shifted easier into other frames easier than a whole procedure. Let’s assume that those units could appear everywhere in any procedure. Wouldn’t it be obvious that this will improve the proceeding? Wouldn’t it become a substantial mediation, when all the functional units are running together somehow where the sum of them create a mediation again?
Integrated mediation is using those units like puzzle pieces, knowing the pieces needed an at least substantial mediation will be the outcome if those units are going together well. The flexibility becomes possible since we declare the procedures to be nothing more than shucks that we declare to be just containers allowing methods to be used or not. We learned to understand the frames and how to prepare them to incorporate features of mediation.