Hi. I'm Julie Tietz, and welcome to "Conflict Resolution-- Putting the Pieces Together." Today, we're going to talk about how we can select and adapt conflict resolution processes to address the needs and context of any particular conflict to meet the needs of the parties.
Conflict resolution processes are categorized and defined by their different approaches, steps, and techniques. So we have various processes that we can utilize, and we differentiate them by their approaches, steps, and techniques. So although we have these different categorizations, each resolution is going to be different in the processes.
So no two resolutions are going to be the same, and that's because we are dealing with different types of conflict. The parties are different within each conflict, and so they're going to come up with their own resolutions. And therefore, we're not going to have identical resolutions in each of these processes. And in some situations, when we are going to select the process to best fit the parties in the context of their conflict, we may also have to modify that process in order to fit the context. So this could be for cultural differences, varying complexities, multiple parties involved-- a number of different reasons that we may have to modify the process in order to fit in with the context of the conflict.
As a role of the conflict intervener, we have a variety of different processes in which we can select to use for the parties in aiding them to address their conflict and hopefully, come up with a resolution. So let's go over, again, some of the processes that we have covered. So we have mediation.
So this is where we have the party-to-party situation with the intervener involved and working with the parties to identify their interests and come up with some options and hopefully a resolution. And even within our mediation process, we have a couple of different types that we can utilize. So we have facilitative mediation, where the mediator just acts as a facilitator to help the parties engage in some dialogue. So there's not a whole lot of involvement, and no opinion from the mediator in this type of mediation.
There's also med-arb, where the parties go in the mediation wanting to come up with their own resolution. But they know that if for some reason, they're unable to craft their own resolution, that the mediator then will change roles into an arbiter, where they will be the ones that will make the final resolution and decision if the parties can't come up with their own. We also have evaluative mediation. So here, the parties are letting the mediator give their suggestions and opinions on some aspects of the conflict. So the parties agree that the mediator can interject during this type of mediation.
There's also transformative mediation, where the parties are not necessarily focusing on the conflict at hand, or resolving the conflict, but rather working on their relationship issues and focusing on that in this type of mediation. Another option would be arbitration. So the parties are coming in knowing that the arbiter is going to make the final decision in their conflict.
There is also shuttle diplomacy, that we typically see with an international and diplomatic conflicts. And so here, the intervener will move between the two parties in order to obtain a resolution. And so here, the parties are not meeting face to face with each other. And then also, we could have a conciliation process, similar to shuttle diplomacy, where the parties are unwilling or unable to meet face to face, and the intervener works in between the two parties to try and make some concessions on both ends in order to come up with a resolution or solution to the issue at hand.
So although we have these really different techniques that we can select and use for various conflicts, and to fit in with the parties in the context of their conflict, we have to know that the core assumptions, or the fundamentals that are within conflict resolution, will always remain the same, regardless of which process we are using. So we are going to, for example, utilize separating people from problems, focusing on the problem rather than attacking a person's personal integrity, and we're going to use some open communication skills-- active listening, giving those non-verbal cues, asking clarifying questions, and focusing on the party's interests, rather than their positions. So we can move the parties to really try and find lasting solutions that will meet the interests of everyone involved.
Let's take a look at our key points on selecting a method or crafting your own. We know that conflict resolution processes are categorized by their various approaches, steps, and techniques. But no two resolutions are going to be the same, regardless of the process that we are going to use. And that's because we're dealing with a variety of different conflicts and a variety of different individuals that are going to come up with their own solutions.
Part of the job of a conflict intervener is to identify, then, the appropriate process that's going to fit in with the context and the parties involved. So they may choose, again, conciliation, transformative mediation, arbitration, or any number of those processes that we have identified. And once we have identified the appropriate process, we then may need to modify that process if necessary, and that could be due to cultural differences, or complexity, or any other factors that we see it necessary to modify the process.
Here are a look at your key terms before we go. Feel free to pause and look at them a little bit closer. Thanks for taking the time out, and I can't wait to catch you again next time.