Definition:

Caucuses are meetings that mediators hold with only one side of a conflict. In such closed-door sessions, disputants can clarify their interests and positions, relieve tension and anger, and solidify their strategies, tactics, and goals in a safe environment.

Users:

Caucusing is usually facilitated by a mediator and includes the members of one conflict party.

Description:

Often in conflicts one or both parties fail to communicate effectively, have unrealistic expectations, or possess poorly thought out arguments and strategies. Parties in conflict may engage in excessive finger-pointing, use inflammatory rhetoric, or launch personal attacks - none of which helps resolve the conflict. Or it might be that one side needs to be empowered and organized so as to balance out conflict and avoid subsequently unstable inequities.

Caucusing is a means by which mediators can attempt to move beyond such roadblocks to consensus. Holding a caucus is analogous to taking two friends who are arguing aside separately and listening to them, trying to reason with them, helping them to think about how they are acting, what they are trying to accomplish, and (when appropriate) how to accomplish it more effectively.

Therefore caucuses are frequently a forum for mediators to help one side become more constructive. For example, when one side is overly angry and expresses that anger too freely when engaged with the other side, a caucus provides a means to vent that anger in a safer venue, relieving the pressure where it will do far less harm. It also might be the case that one side is being unrealistic and doesn't see it - holding a caucus can allow the mediator to reason with them, ask them probing questions, and perhaps get them to realize errors without embarrassing them in front of their competition.

It is important for parties to focus on interests and problems instead of previously held positions and personal attacks. Yet in the heat of a conflict parties may not realize the extent to which they have lost focus on what is important, getting bogged down in the escalating cycle of attack and respond to attack. By holding caucuses, mediators can get parties to step back and rethink their methods and reasoning, which can break an escalation cycle.

Example:

A labor strike has caused a rift between a large corporation and a local union. Mediation begins, but quickly stalls, as each side attacks the other and positions harden. To change the dynamics and prevent further deterioration of the relationships, a mediator might meet with both sides separately. In the labor caucus, the mediator is able to convince the union representatives to speak more constructively and focus on what the workers really want instead of previously held "positional" rhetoric. In the management caucus, the mediator is able to help corporate executives see the human costs of their policies, getting them to loosen their stand against changing employee benefits and working conditions. Improved negotiations follow.

Application:

Many mediators use caucuses to try to change the dynamics of a meeting. They can use them to defuse a tense situation, redirect one or both parties' negotiating strategy, or even to carry ideas back and forth if exchanging ideas at the table doesn't seem to be working very well. Caucuses do have dangers, however, and for that reason some mediators seldom, if ever, use them. The primary danger is that one side will wonder what was said in the other caucus. They might worry that the mediator will tell things to the other side that he or she should not (caucus discussions are almost always confidential), or they might worry that the mediator favors one side over another and will help that side more in the caucus than he or she helps the opponent. The only way to avoid such fears is to have everyone meet together all of the time, but that has its problems as well, problems the caucus is supposed to address.

Links to Related Articles: