We are constantly faced parties at mediation having to take critical decisions. Not always can the parties have their cake and eat it, rather it
will be an either/or choice. Are all decisions are taken from the angle of benefit?
If the choice is between Scylla and Charybdis*, is it fair to assume parties generally tend to opt for the lesser evil? Alternatively, if there is a choice between several favourable options, subjectively, the more advantageous one is likely to be chosen.
*Scylla and Charybdis (where the term ‘between a rock and a hard place’ comes from) were mythical sea monsters. Scylla the six-headed sea monster on the Italian side of the strait and Charybdis was a whirlpool monster off the coast of Sicily. They were located close enough to each other that they posed an inescapable threat to the intrepid leader Odysseus and his sailors; avoiding Charybdis meant passing too close to Scylla and vice versa. According to the mythology, Odysseus was warned about the impending danger to him and his sailors by Zeus the ‘father of gods and men’ and that he had to choose which monster to confront while passing through the strait; he opted to pass by Scylla and lose only a few sailors, but decided not tell his sailors about the imminent peril rather than risk a mutiny or even worse, the loss of his entire ship in the whirlpool.
Q: You are facilitating a marathon mediation – the issue is over division of assets following a collapse of a million dollar business partnership:
• There is an impasse - you and both the parties are absolutely exhausted
• The parties have confided to you a quantum they are willing to resolve the dispute at the last private session – they are only $100 apart
• Earlier on the day, Party A opened up his suitcase pre-mediation and showed you that it was full of cash – the amount of cash in the suitcase covers more than what Party B is seeking from Party A
What are the options available for the mediator to move beyond impasse?
No comments:
Post a Comment