Home Random Page


CATEGORIES:

BiologyChemistryConstructionCultureEcologyEconomyElectronicsFinanceGeographyHistoryInformaticsLawMathematicsMechanicsMedicineOtherPedagogyPhilosophyPhysicsPolicyPsychologySociologySportTourism






D. Subsequent Caucuses

Rarely is a case settled in one or two caucuses. How many caucuses are required depends on the complexity of the case and the willingness of the parties to compromise early on. In subsequent caucuses, the mediator’s primary goal is to keep building rapport and trust. The parties must understand that the mediator is trying to achieve the best possible result for all concerned.

After the first caucus, a certain number of issues will be eliminated as not controlling. The mediator will try to reduce the issues to those that will control the outcome of the case—the determinative issues. In doing this, the mediator indirectly will be helping the parties to evaluate their cases and properly analyze and weigh the evidence, particularly those matters that are raised for the first time at the mediation.[79]

In subsequent caucuses on each side, the mediator primarily will be discussing the weaknesses of the caucusing party’s position as raised by the other side. As noted above, if in the first caucus a party fails to raise or recognize certain weaknesses in the case, particularly those that are obvious, the mediator should not play devil’s advocate and start arguing with counsel. This undermines the rapport the mediator is trying to build. Rather, she should wait until the second and later caucuses to raise them. Now they can be raised as the other side’s strengths that the party needs to address.

As these determinative issues are weighed, the parties must face the question as to the likelihood that they will win or lose on each. The greater their risk of losing, the more they need to begin compromising and work towards a resolution they can accept.

In each subsequent caucus, the mediator must remain nonconfrontational. Little is gained by putting the party or counsel on the defensive. Questions should be asked that are supportive rather than confrontational, understanding rather than overbearing. Such questioning is discussed in a subsequent section of this Article.[80]

Ultimately, the mediator is not trying to convince a party she will lose the case or will not get a result that she would like to achieve; rather, she is trying to help the party understand what the risks are that she will lose or will not achieve the result she seeks. The burden of weighing risks rather than end results is far less onerous on the mediator and less threatening to the parties.[81]

It should also be noted that the more the mediator can get the parties to speak and participate in the process, the more productive the caucus will be. Even encouraging them to vent and express their feelings and frustrations can further the cause. A mediator needs to learn what the parties are thinking, for only in that way will she know how to further the process. The best thing that can happen is to have the parties lighten up and perhaps laugh or speak of other matters during a break or interlude. This is a strong signal that rapport is being established.


Date: 2015-01-02; view: 718


<== previous page | next page ==>
C. First Caucus | E. Final Joint Session
doclecture.net - lectures - 2014-2024 year. Copyright infringement or personal data (0.007 sec.)