Troubling Trends
September 4, 2006 ·
In the Introduction, I wrote about the moment I realized that too many mediators are failing to create their own opportunities and relying far too heavily on court-, agency- and community mediation program-based ADR panels and referrals for work.
What’s going on here? Here are some possible explanations, all of which are troubling for the future of the field:
Possibility 1: The only real growth is in court-based, community and agency-associated programs. The institutionalization of ADR creates great opportunity for the citizenry who make use of the judicial system and for individuals, families and towns who interact with state and federal agencies. And the institutionalization of ADR, particularly by the courts, risks homogenization of a field whose very value, at least in some ways, lies in its “alternative-ness.” ADR driven by court systems risks mediation becoming over-associated with “getting settlement” and not associated enough with engaging and managing conflict. The result is that some portion of the public fails to receive the kind of process and outcome they may most want or need. And in some states, court-based programs are filled to a significant degree primarily with mediators who are also attorneys. Domination of our field by any one demographic is troubling because no one group can effectively serve the entirety of the public’s needs.
Possibility 2: Mediators have given up on getting clients through their own individual efforts. Perhaps some of you tried to build business on your own and found very few clients coming through the door. You heard that other mediators were getting a little work from your state’s court system or from affiliation with a federal mediation program and the chance for any work at all feels better than spinning your private-practice wheels. The trouble is, of course, that only a few mediators make a real living through rosters and panels and the more who want in, the less work there is for all involved.
Possibility 3: Mediators fear or dislike marketing so much that they prefer to rely on already existing programs to send them a thin trickle of work. Perhaps it feels too daunting to create a practice from scratch, or you don’t think you have the fiscal resources to invest in building a solid practice. Perhaps you can’t give up your day job until you build business, but of course your day job prevents you from building business. You’re in a Catch-22 and so it’s easier to get your name on a roster and take the occasional mediation that comes your way.
Possibility 4: Mediators believe it’s wrong to make a living doing ADR work. I know there are mediators in this group because some of you have spoken passionately to me and my colleagues about this over the years. You believe that “true” mediators shouldn’t charge or should only cover expenses in order to serve the world honorably. I strongly disagree with this view. Of course every mediator should offer some service pro bono as a way of giving back and helping create affordable access. Yet to do all or most of your work for free or for the low fees of some court-based and community mediation center programs creates a system that undervalues ADR and, unfortunately, offers little motivation for under-trained mediators to improve their skills. Mediators can and should join the paid-for-services ranks of other helping professions who serve humans admirably and with skill, including doctors, counselors, and massage therapists.
What other possible explanations have I missed?
Copyright © 2006 by Tammy Lenski. All rights reserved.
This may be so fundamental as to be not worth mentioning, but there is still that problem of self-definition. We can be very squirrelly when we are at conferences, parsing the kind of work we do and categorizing ourselves as “transfomative” or “evaluative” but I think there is still a problem of not being able to define what we do, and since there is little or nothing in the way of standards, we end up foundering. So to be defined by the court system gives us some legitimacy that we don’t have to promote on our own, even if it ends up creating a very twisted form of mediation.
I haven’t thought this through very well, but I think there is another roadblock, which is how to convince people who are in conflict that they should come together and split the cost of hiring someone who is not guaranteeing them that they will fight for their individual interests. The connection I see to marketing is that it’s hard to market a rational approach to conflict resolution when people are in the midst of conflict. And it’s probably equally hard to market it to people who aren’t in conflict because they have no interest in it until they find themselves in a mess. So being court-ordered to mediate takes that decision out of their hands and mediators don’t have to justify themselves to their clients.
That may be a very naive view though, since I haven’t tried to market myself, so I’m still in the questioning, self-doubting phase. I just know that you’ve hit on my favorite rant by pointing out the really poor work done by the barely-qualified…
I think there is another possibility here — the inability to focus in on what area or type of mediation you wish to pursue before you create a marketing strategy. The entire field of mediation is daunting in the beginning and it may be hard to identify your focus or passion.
Tammy, you make some really good points here for folks to begin their own marketing. What you say here transfers to so many other fields. Your “Blook” is really taking shape here. Great progress!
Christine - That’s where we’re headed in Part 2, so I hope that part of the blook will help people figure out some of that focus and passion. Stay tuned…
Robyn - Thanks for stopping by and the words of encouragement!
Judy - Food for thought here, thanks. I think you’re right that court-connected mediation provides some “legitimacy” to mediators who haven’t developed their names and practices yet, and I probably need to say that out loud. For mediators who want to concurrently build that legitimacy, it makes sense, as long as they don’t allow that sitting and waiting for cases to become the focus of their practice development–it just won’t, in most cases, put bread on the table.