Most mediation models assume that both parties suffer from a common conflict and that they experience the same level of conflict. This conceptualization is indeed very useful to provide simple models of mediation. How common is it that the two conflicting parties have the same perception of the conflict (ie symmetrical conflict) as the theories presume? Does it not sometimes happen that one perceives the conflict as important as the other perceives it as trivial (ie asymmetric conflict)? Recent research shows that asymmetric conflicts are the rule rather than the exception (Ufkes et al., 2012; Jehn et al. 2010). What is the impact of asymmetric conflict on the mediation process?
The impact of asymmetry between the parties regarding the perception of the severity of the conflict is manifold. First, it is more difficult to initiate a mediation on an asymmetrical conflict (Ufkes et al. 2012). The party for whom the conflict is less important, generally refuses to participate, to the chagrin of the other party and the mediator. Then mediations on asymmetric conflicts typically produce less satisfactory agreement for both parties (Jehn et al. 2006; Jehn et al. 2010). Obviously, the higher the perception gap, the greater the degree of satisfaction will be affected. Interestingly both parties are disappointed for very different reasons.
The party who perceives the conflict as more weighty generally leaves mediation with a sense of distributive injustice (i.e. costs or benefits are not shared equally). In fact the aggrieved party feels the other party should feel the conflict more intensely and that difference is itself unfair. Why is she the only one to suffer? Thus, one party will seek to cause the other to "feel" the conflict more intensely. Where there is agreement, these differences will result in a sense of injustice with a bitter aftertaste: the other gets away with it.
For the party who perceives the conflict as less important, the main factor which induces low satisfaction with mediation is a sense of procedural unfairness (i.e. the process is biased in favor of the other). Indeed, as the mediator takes more time to comfort or support the party most affected by the conflict, the less affected part feels that the mediator is biased. She is suspicious which leads the other party to "play the victim". Where there is agreement, the sense of injustice gives the impression that, despite the agreement, all points of view were not considered equally.
Consequently, when the mediator does not consider the phenomenon of asymmetric conflict it may make strategic choices less effective, mainly with too much attention to the party who feels greater distress in dealing with conflict. The party who is less impacted by the less conflict feels he or she has received less attention from the mediator. The mediator therefore finds himself stuck in a complex negative dynamic, but how common!
References
- Ufkes, E.G., Giebels, E. Otten, S. and K. I. Van der Zee. , 2012. "The Effectiveness of a Mediation Program in Symmetrical versus Asymmetrical Neighbor-to-Neighbor Conflicts", International Journal of Conflict Management, 23 (4), p. 230-257.
- Jehn, K.A., Ruoert, J. and A. Nauta. 2006. "The effects of conflict asymmetry on mediation outcomes: Satisfaction, work motivation and absenteeism", International Journal of Conflict Management, 17 (2), p. 96-109.
- Jehn, K.A., Rupert, J., Nauta, A. and S. van den Bossche. 2010. "Crooked conflicts: The effect of conflict asymmetry in mediation," Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 3 (4), p. 338-357.
Comments