Performance-Based Assessment: a Methodology
Chapter 2: Introduction
The full document was originally published by the National Institute for Dispute Resolution, and is now available without charge as an Adobe Acrobat (.pdf) file.
Major progress has been made in our society in recent years in developing peaceful means of resolving many kinds of disputes. Yet these mechanisms are vulnerable to lapses in quality of execution. As with any immature field of human endeavor, there has often been confusion over the nature of quality work, the doctrines to be applied, and the results that can reasonably be expected. In particular, many dispute resolution programs have been unreliable in their attempts to select in advance those individuals best able to handle the mediator's difficult and elusive role; to make the best use of available resources in training those selected; and to evaluate the results fairly.
Background
Over approximately the last twenty years, there has been a rapid and widespread expansion
of dispute resolution programs nationally, in a plethora of subject fields that have
previously seen their disputes handled mostly by litigation, by unilateral action and,
occasionally, by violence. While these new programs and procedures have received
considerable public acclaim, they have not yet been accompanied by the development of
effective quality-control mechanisms. By 1987, concern was rising among those most
familiar with the quality of results achieved in the field. This concern led the Society
of Professionals in Dispute Resolution (SPIDR) to empanel a Commission on Qualifications,
chartered to investigate and report on basic principles that might influence policy for
setting qualifications for mediators, arbitrators and other dispute resolution
professionals.
In its 1989 Report, the Commission set forth three major conclusions:
Purpose of this Methodology
The present Methodology is an attempt to provide tools for programs that need to select,
train, and/or evaluate mediators. It replaces and expands on the Interim Guidelines for
Selecting Mediators published by NIDR in 1993.
In its 1989 Report, the SPIDR Commission noted favorably an early experiment with development of performance-based selection criteria for labor mediators, involving an examination based on a role-play, conducted by the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission. Subsequently, a similar format and grading standards were found adaptable for use in a Massachusetts court-based program dealing with the mediation of major commercial litigation, in a Hawaii court- based family mediation program, and in a California community-based program. This Methodology is based on experience gained in these and other early experiments, on a consensus of experts from diverse back- grounds, and on subsequent reconsideration following critiques of our tentative conclusions.
The original intent of this project was more simply to provide tools for performance-based selection of mediators. Selection continues to be a focus of concern, particularly in court-connected programs which assign mediators to disputes without the parties having a free-market choice. (See National Standards for Court-Connected Mediation Programs, 1992; also Shaw, 1993). Over the five years of the project's existence, however, we have found that programs' perceived needs vary quite sharply. (See the 1995 Report of the Second SPIDR Commission on Qualifications for a full discussion of these variations). Our previous "product" has been used in varied ways; some examples can be found in section V. below. This document represents an effort to respond to that variety, by providing a framework that will make it easier for any given program to use the underlying principles and approaches in ways consistent with its own principles and resources. For some programs, this will continue to revolve around problems of selection. Other programs, however, may use performance-based assessment more in contexts of training, case assignment or subsequent evaluation. This Methodology is thus drafted with an eye to such uses, and though it replaces the 1993 Interim Guidelines for Selecting Mediators, its purpose is now broader.