WHAT PERCENTAGE OF MEDIATIONS ARE SUCCESSFUL?

Many people want to know what percentage of mediations are successful. That is a surprisingly difficult question to answer, not because of a lack of data on mediation, but because of what “successful” means.

One way to define that would be to report what percentage of mediations result in a signed agreement. And, in fact, some mediators do in fact report that they have a high percentage of such agreements. Most mediation educators such as myself do not consider reaching signed agreements as a true indicator of success. One reason is that if mediators focus so much on reaching an agreement, they may in fact be putting inappropriate pressure on disputants to settle, when they may not yet be ready to do so.

But given that reservation I will report that it is commonly reported that a majority of Small Claims Court mediations do in fact end with an agreement.

A second way to define success would be if the disputants were satisfied with the outcome. Of course, this is very difficult to assess. One indirect way is to compare Small Claims Court mediated agreements with court judgments in terms of compliance. It is generally agreed that the mediated agreements are more likely performance indicators of a higher level of satisfaction.

And a third way to define success would be to consider what happened after the mediation.  For example, I have been the mediator for disputants who were not able to reach an agreement and decided to end the process as a result. But a week or month later, the disputants settled. They report that what they learned during the sessions made it possible for them to settle. They just weren’t ready to do so while the mediation was under going. So, was that mediation successful even though it did not end in an agreement? I would suggest that it was.

And a fourth way to define success would be the disputant’s satisfaction with the process regardless of the outcome. There have been studies that show disputants were satisfied even when no agreement was reached. For example, some reported benefitting from being able to express their cases to the other parties and/or from gaining a better understanding of the other party’s position. 

Perhaps the underlying issue is how Western culture tends to think of conflicts in terms of a final agreement. Other cultures recognize that many conflicts are part of an ongoing relationship. A conflict may be totally resolved forever. In fact, a conflict may only be an episode in an ongoing relationship. Perhaps, then, the criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of mediation is if it provided an opportunity for the parties to engage in meaningful exchanges of perspectives.

Judging success should be based on the ethical issue of self-determination. Did the parties have the opportunity to decide what they want to do with the conflict and their relationship? One of the most effective mediators I know when she is in mediation where the parties seem to be in deadlock, leans back and says “I’m so sorry I just don’t know what to do here. What do you suggest we do?” She then sits quietly. Most times she tells me the parties start working together and reach some sort of agreement.

Success should be determined by the disputants, not by the mediator.