What can mediators learn from the Airwalk case study about keeping people engaged?

I was interested by the end of the case study on Airwalk. The company was able to create a successful “epidemic”, by using the “Law of the Few,” “The Stickiness Factor,” and “The Power of Context.” Where they failed was in the end when they changed the way they behaved relative to the small boutiques. At that point they lost support of the trendsetters. What happened was that the boutiques had power and then it was taken from them. How might this have been different had Airwalk continued to take their lead from the small boutiques and trendsetters. What if they were at the table as decisions were made?

Gore is an example of keeping the parties at the table. The small worksites allow not only for connection but they maximize the voice of each individual, keeping them engaged.

So, how can this apply to mediation? In order to keep parties engaged we need to maximize their voice at the table. As we mediate t I think we need to be careful not to supplant party decision-making and keep the power in the hands of the parties. As we mediate we have choices about how we see our role and use our influence. If we see ourselves as guides or leaders we may use the influence to take the parties where we think they should go. If we see ourselves as supports we can help the parties get to where they want to go. I believe that if we see ourselves as supports we do a better job at keeping the voice of the parties at the table.

What might this mean in practice? One example would be deciding what to discuss next in a mediation. There are many ways to do this. Here are two possible options.

1) Once the issues have been articulated the mediator could organize them in an order to be discussed that s/he feels will best facilitate discussions on agreement.

2) Once the issues have been articulated the mediator could list what has been discussed, points of agreement and disagreement and then ask the parties how they want to proceed.

It has been my experience that the second option not only keeps parties talking, but also may provide them with a process for making future decisions.

I’d be interested in what others think.

0 members like this

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Jo Irvine on February 23, 2011 at 11:33am

I very much agree with this point. I come from more of a development cooperation background but the same applies there too. Mediators and donors/aid workers are NOT the beneficiaries (i dont like this word as it imlies paternalism but that's another debate!) of the objectives and results of the mediation project or development project. This means that we are working for them, which makes us distant from the actual effects or results of the project and there is a danger here of making decisions based on what you think is best and not what is actually best for the beneficiaries. Development aid donors have made this mistake over and over again and have even made things worse in some cases.

Example: typical project builds typical well without consulting the women of the village, who walk 4 hours to retreive the water from the nearest well. A month after the well is built, the women break it. Why? because these four hours was the only time they had to chat together, listen to each other, console each other, plan things etc - ie nurturing social contact with others when the men weren't around. Once the well was 2 minutes away, they weren't allowed out their houses, there was no need for them to spend this time together and so they worked all day cooking and looking after the children etc. Their social relations source had been substituted by a nearby water source and it had destroyed their social relations and freedom.

Participation of all parties involved in the mediation/development process is essential - especially those for whom the project is aimed at. This is how that distance between mediators and the effects of mediation can be reconciled and this should always be taken into consideration.

Any more thoughts?

Permalink Reply by Tamera Drozd on February 28, 2011 at 6:41am

Jo Irvine said:

I very much agree with this point. I come from more of a development cooperation background but the same applies there too. Mediators and donors/aid workers are NOT the beneficiaries (i dont like this word as it imlies paternalism but that's another debate!) of the objectives and results of the mediation project or development project. This means that we are working for them, which makes us distant from the actual effects or results of the project and there is a danger here of making decisions based on what you think is best and not what is actually best for the beneficiaries. Development aid donors have made this mistake over and over again and have even made things worse in some cases.

Example: typical project builds typical well without consulting the women of the village, who walk 4 hours to retreive the water from the nearest well. A month after the well is built, the women break it. Why? because these four hours was the only time they had to chat together, listen to each other, console each other, plan things etc - ie nurturing social contact with others when the men weren't around. Once the well was 2 minutes away, they weren't allowed out their houses, there was no need for them to spend this time together and so they worked all day cooking and looking after the children etc. Their social relations source had been substituted by a nearby water source and it had destroyed their social relations and freedom.

Participation of all parties involved in the mediation/development process is essential - especially those for whom the project is aimed at. This is how that distance between mediators and the effects of mediation can be reconciled and this should always be taken into consideration.

Any more thoughts?

WE work for the 'beneficiaries' - well said and a reminder we should all take!