University Mediation Program (UMP) began in 1987 with 13 mediators. Mediations are provided to faculty and staff of the University of Minnesota, at no cost to the parties. The Single Blind system of mediation was introduced using faculty and staff as mediators for nearly 200 mediations since its inception

Fiutak, Thomas R.

Georgia State University College of Law: Reading Room

Georgia State University College of LawReading RoomCNCR-Hewlett Foundation Seed Grant WhitePapers Centers2000Mediating Faculty and Staff Disputes: TheEvolution of the University Mediation Program ofthe University of MinnesotaThomas R. FiutakUniversity of Minnesota - Twin CitiesFollow this and additional works at: https://readingroom.law.gsu.edu/seedgrantThis Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Centers at Reading Room. It has been accepted for inclusion in CNCR-HewlettFoundation Seed Grant White Papers by an authorized administrator of Reading Room. For more information, please contact mbutler@gsu.edu.Institutional Repository CitationFiutak, Thomas R., "Mediating Faculty and Staff Disputes: The Evolution of the University Mediation Program of the University ofMinnesota" (2000). CNCR-Hewlett Foundation Seed Grant White Papers. 6.https://readingroom.law.gsu.edu/seedgrant/6-1-Mediating Faculty and Staff Disputes:The Evolution of the University Mediation Programof the University of MinnesotabyTHOMAS R. FIUTAKFellow at the Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs &Director of the Conflict & Change CenterAbstractUniversity Mediation Program (UMP) began in 1987 with 13 mediators.Mediations are provided to faculty and staff of the University of Minnesota,at no cost to the parties.  The Single Blind system of mediation wasintroduced using faculty and staff as mediators for nearly 200 mediationssince its inception.In The Beginning     The Conflict and Change Center began in 1986 as one of several basicresearch centers funded by the John and Flora Hewlett Foundation with thepurpose of taking a unique look at the process of social disputing.  This rareopportunity gave way to practical exercises in line with traditional academicmodels, e.g. targeted seminars, speaker series, local and regionalconferences, the letting of research grants, and the occasional paper.  Ourpurpose was to fuse theory and practice.  Initially we focused on theory.The Twin Cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul had the good fortune ofbeing a leader in the alternative dispute resolution field.  CommunityMediation Boards, court annexed mediation, and legislated Farm/Creditmediation were well established.  The Conflict and Change Center had beencreated to bring the robust resources of the University of Minnesota, with itsrich research and outreach history, as a full partner into this largerenvironment.  The University of Minnesota, the largest employer in the Stateother than the State itself, was to be our initial crucible to test how theory-2-may fuse with practice.In 1989, a paper was given at the National Conference for Peace andConflict Resolution in Montreal, Canada, by Thomas E. Wagner, then Senior ViceProvost of the University of Cincinnati (Wagner, 1989).  In this paper hedescribed the value of various models of mediation extant in Universitysystems at that time which approached disputing among faculty.  This wasunique, because up to that point the main discussion of mediation within thecontext of Higher Education was to relegate mediation as a disputing tool forstudents and those who administered their social welfare on campuses.As noted by Wagner, mediation available or proposed for faculty waspositioned as the alternative role either in parallel or interactively withthe well-established formal grievance systems.  The result was the process of“grievance-mediation” which, while allowing for needed flexibility in process,attached mediation as a subordinate cooperative tool relative to themainstream competitive confrontation of grieving.In the late 80's the Conflict and Change Center set out consciously toalter the conflict culture of our university.  The goal was strategic in thatwe developed a basic theory surrounding the process of altering a culture frominside.  Yet, in retrospect, the actions (trainings, policies, services,interventions) were more in response to the needs of the University that werepresented to us rather than a set of pro-active, leading devices meant toinduce the University to follow a set path.  The old saying, “When the studentis ready, the teacher will appear” applies in this regard, understanding thatour role was both.There Was TheoryFrom the time of the great library in Alexandria, Egypt, peoples havebeen creating institutions that would capture knowledge, hold it, and guardits integrity against the vagaries of contemporary fashion.  Institutions ofHigher Education are not known for their adaptability to change.  The internalstructures are created precisely to keep change measured against the criterion-3-of whether the change allows the institution to either withstand change orcreate knowledge without losing its soul.  The community of scholars acts asmost communities, their acceptance of change from within allows for controlledchange.  This is preferred over externally induced change.Our approach was to induce the change from within.  The Model forintroducing mediation into the core of the University was based on thefollowing principles and assumptions:1) Institutionalization of change systems comes from altering theperception, structure and use of power in an organization;2) Faculty are the core power source in academe, followed by academicallylinked administrators;3) From our own testing as well as experience, the primary strategy fordisputing in the University is to avoid conflicts and to accommodateextreme demands of faculty and staff;4) A University is an interposing of two primary organizational cultures -one bureaucratic and the other collegial.  Therefore, both sub-culturesmust be recognized and attended to in order to affect organizationalchange;5) Borrowing from mediating principles, to mediate change there is a needto create a culturally neutral status as regards both cultures;6) While bureaucracies use quasi-litigious competitively based disputesystems such as grievance procedures and supervisory arbitration,collegial cultures create disputing systems based primarily on looseaffiliations where cooperative models are desired to maintain the“community of scholars”;7) Approached organizational changes that are top-down favor bureaucraticsystems.  Bottom-up approaches favor collegial dynamics.  We willattempt an “infection” model of organizational change by infectingindividuals throughout both sub-cultures, interactively and at alllevels.-4-Then PracticeIn order to initiate our program, a series of monthly seminars onNegotiating Skills in Higher Education were conducted for anyone in theUniversity who had supervisory responsibilities.  This allowed all staff andfaculty from the rank of senior secretary and above to attend.  Within threeyears nearly 400 University members attended, representing 114 departments andall five regional campuses, including a member of the Board of Regents.A significant part of the seminar was the foundation work forcooperative disputing and its benefits as compared to competitive systems.Approximately 28% of the participants were faculty.  Mediation was highlightedand UMP described with the intent of teaching a broad scope of communitymembers how to access the mediation process.  Both unassisted and assistednegotiation role-plays were utilized. The dual culture model of the University was always a lively point giventhat each seminar had a broad cross section of both cultures.  We posed ourgoal as the design and implementation of “authentic arenas” in which disputesamong and between faculty and staff could be resolved.  The question raisedwas always, authentic to whom?  Grievance systems were seen as especiallyalien to the collegial culture.  This model was seen as a weapon that thebureaucratic culture would use to shape up those who resided in the collegialculture.  Authentic to us meant an arena for disputing which was eligible forall faculty and staff by virtue of its ease of accessibility, low cost to theinstitution, and reliance on interest-based disputing which minimized thecoercive affect of individual or organizational power.  The concept of theauthentic arena for disputing was an attempt at shifting the culture towardsthe authentic internal rhythms of the community.And MediatorsA memorandum was sent to the Deans, Directors, and Department Heads ofthe University, asking if they could identify a situation over the past yearwhere, if a mediation system existed, they would have requested its use.  They-5-were also asked to nominate an individual in their organization that they feltwould make a good mediator.  The usual return for such feedback requests wasexpected to be in the range of 10- 15%.  One hundred and ten of nearly threehundred Deans, Directors and Department Heads responded.  A briefadvertisement was put in the daily university school paper announcing thattraining was being proposed for “candidates” who wished to mediate within theUniversity community.It was critical for those who wished to be trained as mediators torecognize that their eligibility to mediate demanded that they go through thetraining, be reviewed by external mediators, and observe mediations.  In pasttraining which I have given, the percentage of candidates who were judgedready to mediate ranged from 40 to 70%.  There was no reason to assume thatuniversity staff and faculty would be any different.  The designator ofcandidate was purposely used to have them understand that their competency hadto be tested.  This was very helpful at that point when, as expected, severalfaculty and staff were not allowed to mediate.  There was no correlationbetween academic or bureaucratic rank and the acceptance or declination as amediator.The Mediator TrainingSixteen mediator candidates were selected for training after individualinterviews.  The initial forty hours of training took place over two months.The training was given during the normal work hours.  A significant part ofthe training was aimed at having the candidates understand the root causes ofconflict within this bi-cultural organization.  All mediators had to beprepared to deal with disputes which were rooted within one of the cultures orwhich were complex intersections of the two.  The formal, traditionalmediation training and role-plays were geared to address these possibilities.The final evaluation was a day-long process where each candidate had tomediate two cases using mediators from outside the University as role players.Therefore, four external mediators evaluated each candidate.  These external-6-mediators played a critical role in evaluating, quantitatively andqualitatively, the competency or each candidate.  The final decision as to whowould pass to mediator status was made by the trainer, i.e. this author,informed by the evaluations of the external reviewers.Mediating was presented as a privilege within the University Community.No payment was given and no public recognition was provided.  UMP mediatorshad to act as independent resources carrying only the tools of the mediationprocess.  At the close of the training, a wine and cheese reception was heldattended by the president of the University.  This was the only officialrecognition given or expected by the mediator candidates.As projected, eight of the candidates were ready to mediate; four werewell prepared but not yet ready; and four were judged as needing significantimprovement.  The highest rated candidate was an administrator in HealthServices.  The second highest was a secretary in the Physical EducationDepartment.  Of the eight top rated candidates, three had faculty rank.The Single-Blind Mediation ModelThe model by which the mediation system operates is referred to as the“Single-Blind Model.”  UMP mediators are trained to carry out a singlemediator process.  Another mediator or candidate is assigned to the mediationbut only as an observer, there to provide needed feedback and debriefing afterthe mediation.  The single mediator is used as well in multi-party mediations.Therefore, much of the training prepared the candidates for adjusting theseskills to large groups.  This has been of particular value in retrospect, forthe average number of parties per mediation has risen over the course of thepast ten years to over three parties per mediation.Mediators enter the mediation with only the names of the parties toassure there is no conflict of interest due to prior interactions.  Theauthor, as coordinator of the UMP process, does not discuss any of thesubstantive information surrounding the particular case.  Therefore, themediator enters the mediation arena blind to the conflict at hand.  These-7-conditions demand that the mediators be particularly skilled at bringing outthe salient information from all parties and being assertive in questioningfor the sake of being able to understand often complex disputes.The purpose behind this approach is to emphasize the division of laborwhich drives the mediation process.  The mediator takes responsibility for theprocess; the parties take responsibility for the outcome.  The parties areclearly aware that the mediator has been given this role because of her or hisparticular competence in the process of mediation.  The mediators are put on arotating list.  The next mediator on the list is assigned the next mediation. While there is often a request by the parties for a mediator having certainacademic or experiential characteristics, no matching of mediator to casecategory has been done.  In this respect, we have never had a party decline tomediate because a match would not be made.After the mediation, the mediator and observer debrief: A writtenevaluation form is completed by the observer, shared with the mediator, andthen sent to the Conflict and Change Center.  In the 68% of the mediationsthat reach a written agreement, a copy of the agreement is given to each partyand one copy sent to the Conflict and Change Center.  The mediator does notkeep a copy.  Notes are not taken during the mediation by the mediator sothere is no need to destroy any of the mediator’s notes.  Periodically, themediators and candidates will gather.  At this time, specific cases arediscussed with no references made to the name of the parties or the name ofthe department.  The parties bear sole responsibility for the communication ofthe mediated outcome.  The mediator will simply acknowledge whether themediation was held or not.The TestThe theory behind the single-blind model is that, by having competentmediators, the mediation process they were taught would apply to any conflict.If the parties understood that they had to create the shared meaning, guidedby the mediator, the mediator could focus on the structural attributes of a-8-sound mediation: reality testing, interactive processing of interests,emotional venting, option building and agreement writing.There are moments when practice provides a test of theory with awesomeclarity.  During the first year of operating the UMP, a request for mediationcame from an academic department dealing with the physical sciences.  The casedealt with a dispute between two male tenured faculty, the junior of which hadobtained a large grant allowing for significant procuring of technicalequipment for the department.  The senior of these two faculty, however, wasstopping the accessing of the grant money because he would not agree to theco-investigator role assigned to him by the tenured faculty member who wasjunior to him.  The conflict had broiled for a year.  They finally agreed tomediate.  My next mediator to be assigned was the twenty-nine year old, femalesecretary from Physical Education.Such points in the bridging of theory to practice make one pause.  Ourprogram is hinged on a model of shared responsibility for cooperative outcomesbased on a division labor within the dispute arena.  Competent mediators neednot have expertise in the apparent substance of the conflict.  This concept isstill hotly debated.  The single-blind model, however, supports the culture bydistinguishing between the power of process expertise and the power ofsubstantive expertise.  In theory, if the mediator is able to resist theseduction of crossing this line, the parties will find themselves empowered togenerate enduring agreements.In one hour and forty-five minutes, an agreement was reached and signedby the two faculty members and the mediator.Institutional OutcomesThe positive evidence within the University ranges from the structuredto the casual.  For example, the Extension Division had maintained a policy ofusing mediation as the follow up to supervisor-supervisees disputes risingfrom performance evaluation.  Mediation has been institutionalized in theformal grievance policies of the University.  When a recent labor union had-9-gained its right to organize a significant portion of the clerical work forceof the University, UMP was requested to mediate the labor-management disputes,which were projected during the first year of reorganization.While periods of intense evaluation have taken place, the more profoundresponses come from the unsolicited calls from supervisors, faculty, and staffwho thank us for the University Mediation Program.  Intractable conflicts hadbeen resolved leading to an enhanced quality of life in the department or workgroup.  That is the essence of a conflict friendly institution.  The qualityof life increases because conflict can be approached from within the cultureby using its own rhythms to support cooperative disputing.BIBLIOGRAPHYWagner, T.  “Grievance Mediation in the Institutional Context of HigherEducation.” Unpublished Paper. Cincinnati, OH: University of Cincinnati,1989.

English

Mediating Faculty and Staff Disputes: The Evolution of the University Mediation Program of the University of Minnesota

bepress Legal Repository

https://readingroom.law.gsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1009&amp;context=seedgrant

Mediating Faculty and Staff Disputes: The Evolution of the University Mediation Program of the University of Minnesota

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Georgia State University College of Law: Reading Room

bepress Legal Repository