Our fund is the idea about Mediation

Having in mind that mediation is a cognition process it is possible to virtualise it. If you compare mediation with a brain walk, done by the parties and supported by mediators, it becomes clear that you do not need much more than brain. In best case we have brain we have with us all the time . This is the reason why mediation is possible everywhere any time.

Cognition process

Where mediation is a cognition process it mainly is based on the way of thinking. The legal procedure is the frame that makes this way of thinking easier. Mediation should not be limited to that. It can be used as a method as well as a procedure. The way of thinking and dealing with it counts. The outcome of the process of thinking should be a solution, which will be found on its way. The funds on which the solution will ground is understanding. Understanding should be possible any time. It helps people finding the right decisions. The main question a mediator should ask is therefore always: Do I understand correctly and how can I make correct understanding possible.

Realising understanding

We have to differ the idea (theory) behind mediation and the way how to implement it. Now we use the skills and knowledge of mediation for implementing it. Suddenly we have another view on it. We know achieving a settlement dosen’t say anything about the quality of it. We know finding a solution doesn’t say anything about its understanding and sustainability. We know that certifications dosen’t guarantee behave. We know majority doesn’t say anything about consensus. We know control doesn’t motivate. And so on.

Advocate for mediation

Mediation is a measure for its implementation and a concept of implementing mediation the same way. If we imagine, that implementing mediation and solving the problems in order to do that is a case of mediation. How would we proceed?

1. We fist would ask about the aim and the benefit to be achieved (Phase 1). Do we want to increase a demand or to improve the culture of conflict or debate?
2. We then would ask about the people involved (Phase 0) and the problems to be solved (Phase 2) among them. We will see that people earn money with conflict resolution. Avoiding or shortening them cots an earning.
3. Then we have to ask about the interests behind (Phase 3). What is the benefit each party wants to realise? At least they want to satisfy the customers. The way how to do it is as different as the idea about satisfaction.
4. Finally we head to solutions (Phase 4). Solutions will turn around the understanding of conflicts and ways how to achieve satisfaction without loosing income and reputation.

Mediation policy

If we observe the process of implementing mediation it might occur that all those queries have never been asked much less than answered. Willing or not politics become a question for all who want to implement mediation in markets and society.

Understanding the surveys about mediation (EU and Germany for example), we learn that mediation couldn’t be implemented as wanted. EU’s aim was 50% of cases done by mediation. 1% could be achieved. No wonder why as long mediation is treated as a legal procedure, what it definitely not is.

Wanted or not, who wants mediation to take off becomes a politician in the one or other way. He becomes an ambassador of mediation. Its challenging to not step into the trap. The rules of politics are not comparable with the ideas of mediation. In politics majorities and power is more important than consensus and understanding. Achieving aims is more important than benefits. Opinions are more important than values. In this game it really is a challenge to clarify what mediation is without playing that political game.

Our solution is to play it like a mediation game realising the cognition process of mediation.

How can we put those pieces of a puzzle together in order to create a complete picture everybody likes? We founded an association to create a community, where mediation can become alive. Giving a frame to all mediators who want mediation to take off.