The few (to date) corporate Users who publicly advocate increased use of Alternative Dispute Resolution/Conflict Management Tools appear to have finally found more of a collective voice. That voice, it appears, differs in dramatic respects from other stakeholders in every corner of the globe.
The Survey revealed divergent views in terms of corporate business and their external advisors. Essentially, users felt that advisors were not recommending mediation regularly enough (though advisors disagreed), and felt that advisors were not familiar enough with either mediation or conflict management (to which advisors agreed). Three years earlier, almost 50% of users felt that external counsel might even be an impediment to the mediation process [https://imimediation.org/imi-international-corporate-users-adr-survey-summary]
Certainly, where a mediator’s qualifications and experience was the most important criteria for users (75%), the search to find mediators of the requisite caliber did not appear to be reflected in the tools used by advisors. Advisors’ reliance on peers and their own network to find qualified mediators (53%) rather than asking local ADR institutions (23%) or consulting transparent, dedicated mediator search engines (4%) appears to be: (1) a disservice to users, (2) a missed opportunity to gain knowledge/awareness of the many resources available to find the right match for each user’s needs, and (3) perpetuates overuse of a few “name” mediators while neglecting up-and-coming talent who might do just as well and at a more reasonable rate.
Case in point – only 10% of the mediator population surveyed earned over USD 200,000 a year solely performing mediations. The majority (55%) of mediators globally, earned USD 50,000 or less, equating to the average yearly wage in OECD countries. With such statistics, it is a small wonder that 70% of mediator respondents stated that they engaged in some other profession in addition to performing mediation services. The field of regularly recommended mediators appears to simply be too small.
In relation to mediator and user views, although 71% of mediators responding stated that what users think about mediation is extremely important, only 45% of mediators (the lowest of all stakeholders surveyed) stated that how a mediation can be enforced (an important point for users) was similarly important. The length of a mediation was also of least concern to mediators and of higher concern to users (amongst the stakeholder pool).
Though user opinions should not necessarily be considered the “Holy Grail” of how mediations should work, users are an irrefutable component (and indeed the essence) of mediation. Once we do more to encourage their voices to be heard, other stakeholders would do well to liberally collaborate with users to inspire more mediations through increased use of a wide range of professionally competent mediators. The infection (and ultimate rapid de-escalation of business conflicts) would be welcome