Comments on: In praise of joint sessions: mediator Geoff Sharp pays tribute to face-to-face negotiations

By: Diane Levin

Diane Levin — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 17:09:22 +0000

John, thanks for telling us how things look from your vantage point. This is one reason why I personally reject orthodoxies in mediation practice. There is no one-size-fits-all approach. Personally, I prefer to be flexible and deploy whatever techniques will best serve the clients. And I have spoken out in defense of the caucus in an earlier post, citing numerous reasons to support private meetings with disputants. Nonetheless, the recent literature questioning the heavy reliance upon and preference for the caucus, particularly in litigated cases, is welcome, since it calls on us to think about the purpose behind the practice. From time to time it doesn't hurt to question long-standing assumptions. Thanks for commenting, John. I always appreciate your contributions here.

By: John Folk-Williams

John Folk-Williams — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 06:03:42 +0000

Thanks, Diane, for making the paper available.

In the public policy sector, where I’ve always worked, it’s not possible or desirable to attempt resolution negotiations completely through caucuses. The whole idea of a collaborative decision would be lost. However, partly because of the number of parties in these cases, agreements are usually put together through separate caucus sessions and side meetings with subsets of parties. Everything still has to go back to plenary sessions for further negotiation and final agreement. While there are practitioners in this field who like to do everything through plenary meetings, it’s more common to combine the two approaches.

John