The Selection of Mediation Tactics in Public Sector Disputes: A Contingency Analysis

Abstract

How do professional mediators decide what tactics to use in public sector disputes? The present study was designed to evaluate the general proposition that mediators tailor their tactics to the particular dispute circumstances. The respondents were 32 mediators working with the Iowa Public Employment Relations Board. Interviews with these mediators were followed by a questionnaire that asked them to rate, for one case, the extent to which the dispute arose from any of 24 sources and the extent to which they used any of 37 mediation tactics. Correlations were calculated between the measures of dispute sources and mediation tactics. These correlations support the hypothesis that mediators adapt their activities to different dispute circumstances. Among the findings: Bargainers' “unrealistic expectations” are positively associated with mediator efforts to change these expectations and with telling the parties their position is unrealistic. Bargainer “hostility” is positively associated with mediator attempts to control hostility by using humor to lighten the atmosphere and by using directive tactics such as pressing hard for concessions. “Too many issues” is positively associated with mediator efforts to simplify the agenda, organize priorities, suggest trade‐offs, clarify needs with constituents, and hold long sessions to facilitate compromise. Bargainers who “lack experience/expertise” lead mediators to simplify the agenda and to educate them to the impasse process.