After introductions, the mediator says, “First, let’s hear the plaintiff’s case.”
In this response it seems the mediator has already made his/her decision that there is a plaintiff and a defendant .This is mediation and the parties should be regarded as equals without taking sides.
In mediation process all subjects should regarded as innocent since the sole aim of the mediation is to bring the parties together without pointing others to be guilty (Baum 12).
After introductions, the mediator should say, “hello, first, let’s hear what our friend has to say about this issue.”
The disputant says, “Harold is worse than a criminal. He lied to me at every turn. He should be executed.” The mediator answers, “I can understand your being mad because he lied to you. Butyourchildishlanguageisoutrageous.”
In this situation the mediator tends to concur with the accuser or disputant .Though the mediator is aware of the case beforehand, he should not repeat the disputant claims or tend to support them publicly without ascertaining the real truth.
The mediator here should concentrate on the issue at hand. He should be unassuming and patient, and that he should not react to what the subjects are saying (Robert 34).Another thing is that instead of bring calm to the situation he raises his anger especially when he says “your childish language is outrageous”.
In this situation the mediator should have said, “I understand what you’re going through and I would appreciate if please you talk modestly.”
Mediator: “We are here to decide who should have custody of Joannie.”
The mediator seems to support one side and he doesn’t try to bring the fighting parties together. The mediator seems to have allowed the warring parties to part ways.
Here the mediator should try to bring the two parties together and prevent them from separating. The child should not be used to settle the dispute because the child needs the two parents together.
Another problem is that the mediator should not support or allow the child to be deprived of the love of either parent (Daniel & Louis Kahn 65).
In this instance the mediator should have said, “We are here to resolve this problem and make Joannie enjoy having you two under one roof.”
In response to a disputant’s comment that the disputants have been able to agree on a settlement amount but not the terms of payment, the mediator says, “So you have a dispute about the terms of payment.”
The issue with mediator behaviorism here is that it seems he his only interested in finalizing the case at hand and he doesn’t care about the outward consequences.
Another problem with the mediator behavior is that he doesn’t take time to listen on what is being said. He jumps to conclusion before understanding what contributed to the unresolved issue, here being the terms of the payment.
The mediator takes no time to weigh the available options, especially what would be the advantage of bringing them together? If he follows this thread, the issue of settlement would not crop in.
Another issue is that the mediator still believes the issue is irreconcilable and this is evident from his tone when he says, “So you have a dispute about the terms of payment.”This means he believes the fighting parties can not resolve anything among themselves and the meeting they have is just a mere formality.
A good mediator should not break up parties more but bring them together (Daniel & Louis Kahn 65).
Under this circumstances of noting that there are some unresolved issues ,the mediator should have said ,“nothing is impossible and am hoping we will solve this emerging issue amicably “
Disputants are at impasse. Mediator says, “Let’s caucus!”
When in deadlock, the parties should not be separated but they should be put on one table to resolve their underlying issues. The mediator assertion is unwise and instead of solving the problem it creates even more issues.
During deadlock or impasse it’s advisable to give the warring parties some time to think about the problem at hand, and the invite them on one table to share what they feel and come to an agreement (Baum 76).
In this situation of deadlock, the mediator should have said, “Lets me give you a 10 minute break, and then we analyze the problem from the start.,
Baum, Williams). Understanding behaviorism: Behavior, Culture and Evolution.New York: Blackwell.2005.Print
Daniel, Katz and Robert, Louis Kahn. The social psychology of organizations. New York: Wiley.1966.Print.
Robert, Lussier .Conflict resolution: Application and Skill Building. London: McGraw-Hill, Irwin.2008.Prnt