This past weekend, the Graduate Program in Dispute Resolution here at Marquette hosted noted scholar Bernie Mayer. Bernie was mostly speaking about his book, Beyond Neutrality and, on Saturday, was invited in a point-counterpoint format to discuss his arguments with equally well-noted practitioner Howard Bellman. One point of the discussion was about Bernie’s argument, outlined in his book, that the dispute resolution field is marginalized in the most important disputes. In other words, in the biggest crises of the day and over the biggest problems (think war, state of the economy, etc.), the dispute resolution field does not generally have a seat at the table. In the interests of full disclosure, I have definitely thought this as well and have participated in panels at both of the IACM and Negocia meetings in 2005 where we discussed the marginalization of dispute resolvers.
But, I have to say, Howard has a very interesting response which actually made me feel a whole lot better. First, he argued, there are times when dispute resolution experts are involved and just because we don’t talk about this (often for client confidentiality purposes) does not mean that we have not been consulted. He gave an interesting example himself of being invited to a large white house in Washington D.C. and you will have to get the rest of the details from him. Second, Howard argued, there are times when the problem-solving paradigm just does not fit. Some large public policy crises need to be win-lose–the wrong side is just wrong–and we don’t actually want anyone working these out.
So, I was curious to hear from our blogosphere–what do you think? Are we marginalized? Should dispute resolution professionals be called on more often in public policy and international disputes? Should we just get over ourselves–we are called on when we are needed? Let us know what you think!
Part of the problem is that most mediators and dispute resolution professionals work alone with their particular client referral sources. Thus, unless they are connected to a policy maker or have developed a singular reputation, they are unlikely to be called to serve in large politically charged conflicts. The professional organizations (ACR, IAMED, ACCTM, ABA DR) are not the gatekeepers for the larger disputes. Mediators Beyond Borders has been formed in part to address the problem and hopefully will provide a platform for involvement on the larger issues. Otherwise, it seems to be a process of slow, viral marketing as more and more people in high positions experience the power of mediation.
Politicians are dispute resolution professionals and are routinely engaged in high profile disputes. So are diplomats.
Great post Andrea.
I have to say, I didn’t think Bernie’s crisis thesis in Beyond Neutrality stood scrutiny when it came out, now the most part of 4 years ago.
I guess my views are summed up best in “It’s the mediators who are connected and have authority in their niche who will live long and prosper” [http://mediatorblahblah.blogspot.com/2007/03/its-mediators-who-are-connected-and.html]
Fact is, it’s our reality is that conflict resolvers who are FIRST connected and have authority and SECOND have mediation skills that get to sit at the peace table. I don’t think I have a problem with that.
Just means we need to get more mediators to public office and there’s a bunch of folks working on that.
See also “Skill Is Not Enough: Seeking Connectedness and Authority in Mediation” by Chris Honeyman of Convenor, Bee Chen Goh and Loretta Kelly of Southern Cross University.
Andrea, great question.
While I can’t speak about the rest of the world, I can certainly point to the political and cultural forces at work here in the U.S. that have indeed marginalized dispute resolution professionals. This is a topic I’ve tackled in the past on my own blog, including a year ago with “What’s so funny ’bout peace, love and understanding? Thoughts on why we’re not getting to yes“.
The fact that we’re not called upon more often is not surprising — not when the prevailing political wisdom on both the right and left dismisses negotiation as a sign of weakness. Let’s not forget that just a few months ago Hillary Clinton criticized Barack Obama for his naivete in matters of international diplomacy, charging that Obama “wavers from seeming to believe that mediation and meetings without preconditions can solve some of world’s most intractable problems and advocating rash unilateral military action”. And Rush Limbaugh mocked John McCain for reaching across the aisle to Democrats, sneering “When did the measure of conservatism, when did the measure of success, when did the measure of progress, when did it become reaching out to Democrats?”
Those who wield political power in the U.S. not only devalue the skills and experience of the dispute resolution professional they openly demean them. Until there’s a change in the current political climate, or until our field can successfully turn the tide of public opinion and reshape public understanding of the value of negotiation and direct talks, we’ll remain on the sidelines.
I wish I’d heard Howard talk — it might have left me less discouraged about this.