Zusammenfassung
Der katalytische Mediator ist ein pragmatischer Gegenvorschlag zur klassischen Haltung der Neutralität in der Mediation. Mit dem Ziel, die Medianten füreinander passungsfähiger zu machen, strukturiert der katalytisch agierende Mediator die Wahrnehmung und Interaktionsmöglichkeiten seiner Medianten. Als Leitmotive dienen ihm deren Interessen und Ressourcen, sowie deren Motivation und ihre persönlichen Eigenschaften. Der folgende Beitrag zeigt auf, was ein katalytischer Mediator ist und wie diese Haltung in der Praxis umgesetzt werden kann.
Literatur
Bagshaw, D. (2015). Mediation in the World today: Opportunities and challenges. Journal of Mediation & Applied Conflict Analysis, 3(1), 187–200.
Bernard, S. E., Folger, J. P., Weingarten, H. R., & Zumeta, Z. R. (1984). The neutral mediator: Value dilemmas in divorce mediation. Mediation Quarterly, 4, 61–74. https://doi.org/10.1002/crq.39019840406.
Brodie, H., & Harnack, K. (2018). The trust mandate. Hampshire: Harriman House.
Campbell, L., Martin, R. A., & Ward, J. R. (2008). An observational study of humor use while resolving conflict in dating couples. Personal Relationships, 15(1), 41–55. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2007.00183.x.
Cohen, O., Dattner, N., & Luxenburg, A. (1999). The limits of the mediator’s neutrality. Mediation Quarterly, 16(4), 341–348. https://doi.org/10.1002/crq.3900160404.
Crowe, E., & Higgins, E. T. (1997). Regulatory focus and strategic inclinations: Promotion and prevention in decision-making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69(2), 117–132.
De Dreu, C. K. W., Carnevale, P. J., Emans, B. J., & Van De Vliert, E. (1994). Effects of gain-loss frames in negotiation: Loss aversion, mismatching, and frame adoption. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 60, 90–107.
De Dreu, C. K. W., Koole, S. L., & Oldersma, F. L. (1999). On the seizing and freezing of negotiator inferences: Need for cognitive closure moderates the use of heuristics in negotiation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 348–362. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167299025003007.
De Dreu, C. K. W. (2003). Time pressure and closing of the mind in negotiation. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 91, 280–295.
Douglas, S. (2008). Neutrality in mediation: A study of mediator perceptions. Queensland University of Technology Law and Justice Journal, 8, 139–157.
Druckman, D., & Wagner, L. M. (2016). Justice and negotiation. Annual Review of Psychology, 67, 387–413.
Feinberg, M., & Willer, R. (2015). From gulf to bridge: When do moral arguments facilitate political influence? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(12), 1665–1681.
Galinsky, A. D., Leonardelli, G. J., Okhuysen, G. A., & Mussweiler, T. (2005). Regulatory focus at the bargaining table: Promoting distributive and integrative success. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1087–1098. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167205276429.
Gerami, A. (2009). Bridging the theory-and-practice gap: Mediator power in practice. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 26(4), 433–451. https://doi.org/10.1002/crq.242.
Gibson, K., Thompson, L., & Bazerman, M. H. (1996). Shortcomings of neutrality in mediation: Solutions based on rationality. Negotiation Journal, 12(1), 69–80. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1571-9979.1996.tb00079.x.
Gross, A. (2016). Raising awareness of potential biases and microaggressions: Applications to mediation. Journal of Mediation & Applied Conflict Analysis, 3(1), 73–79.
Harnack, K. (2016). A psychological toolbox for mediators: From theory and research to best practices. In K. Bollen, M. Euwema & L. Munduate (Hrsg.), Advancing workplace mediation through integration of theory and practice (S. 55–66). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42842-0_4.
Jacobs, S. (2002). Maintaining neutrality in dispute mediation: Managing disagreement while managing not to disagree. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(10), 1403–1426. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00071-1.
Kracht, S. (2002). Rolle und Aufgabe des Mediators Prinzipien der Mediation. In F. Haft & K. Schlieffen (Hrsg.), Handbuch mediation – methoden und Technik, Rechtsgrundlagen, Einsatzgebiete (S. 363). München: C.H. Beck Verlag.
Kruglanski, A. W. (2013). The psychology of closed mindedness. New York: Psychology Press.
Lindström, B. a., & Pettersson, L. J. (2003). A brief history of catalysis. CATTECH, 7(4), 130–138.
McCorkle, S. (2005). The murky world of mediation ethics: Neutrality, impartiality, and conflict of interest in state codes of conduct. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 23(2), 165–183. https://doi.org/10.1002/crq.131.
Morrow, S. L. (2005). Quality and trustworthiness in qualitative research in counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 250–260. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.250.
Nicolau, G., & Cormick, G. W. (1972). Community disputes and the resolution of conflict: Another view. The Arbitration Journal, 27(2), 98–112.
Oesper, R. B. (1948). Alwin Mittasch. Journal of Chemical Education, 25(10), 531–532.
Petelczyc, C. A., Capezio, A., Wang, L., Restubog, S. L. D., & Aquino, K. (2017). Play at work: An integrative review and agenda for future research. Journal of Management, 161–190. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206317731519.
Peters, E. (1958). The mediator: A neutral a catalyst or a leader. Labor Law J, 9, 764–769.
Proyer, R. T. (2013). The well-being of playful adults: Adult playfulness, subjective well-being, physical well-being, and the pursuit of enjoyable activities. The European Journal of Humour Research, 1(1), 84–98. https://doi.org/10.5167/uzh-78008.
Quinn, P. M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Schlink, S., & Walther, E. (2007). Kurz und gut: Eine deutsche Kurzskala zur Erfassung des Bedürfnisses nach kognitiver Geschlossenheit. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 38(3), 153–161. https://doi.org/10.1024/0044-3514.38.3.153.
Steininger, B. (2008). Katalysator: Annäherung an einen Schlüsselbegriff des 20. Jahrhunderts. In E. Müller & F. Schmieder (Hrsg.), Begriffsgeschichte der Naturwissenschaften: zur historischen und kulturellen Dimension naturwissenschaftlicher Konzepte (S. 53–71). Berlin/New York: De Gruyter.
Tahan, M. (1993). The man who counted: a collection of mathematical adventures. New York: WW Norton.
Wang, J. (2015). Neutral, biased, or both? Discursive construction of a mediator’s dual role. Negotiation Journal, 31(1), 47–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/nejo.12079.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer-Verlag GmbH Deutschland, ein Teil von Springer Nature
About this entry
Cite this entry
Harnack, K. (2018). Der Mediator: Katalysator der Mediation. In: Kracht, S., Niedostadek, A., Sensburg, P. (eds) Praxishandbuch Professionelle Mediation. Springer Reference Psychologie . Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-49657-2_26-1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-49657-2_26-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-662-49657-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-662-49657-2
eBook Packages: Springer Referenz Psychologie