Why Parties Don't Always Reach A Mutual Outcome

I’m often asked why parties in mediation can’t reach a mutually agreed upon outcome. One reason is because there are times when a party uses mediation in an attempt to reach a totally unrealistic objective. 

For example, recently a senior citizen widow sued her contractor over $2,000 worth of work he did not complete under their contract. Typically, such cases in Small Claims Court are referred to mediation as these are commonly disputes that are easily handled and resolved in using this method.

However this one was a bit different. During mediation the plaintiff was asked what brought the parties to the table as it were. She began by explaining how she’d seen the defendant’s work in their neighborhood and requested he do some work on her home too. She then went on to explain that they fell in love and had a relationship that lasted about 6 months. He even moved into her home. She then went on with her story in tears. It seems that one day he told her he was going back to his wife and moved out. She kept saying that all she wanted was for him to “come back” as “she was deeply in love with him.” Of course the mediator attempted several times to get her to focus on her Small Claims claim of $2,000. She kept returning to the story of their relationship, but the mediator was eventually able to determine that she was claiming some countertop work wasn’t the color she had ordered and wanted it replaced along with some minor corrections to other work he had done. The mediator asked if she had a basis for the dollar amount such as a bid from another contractor.  She replied that she didn’t want another contractor to do the work, she wanted only him to come back and do the work himself.

Finally the mediator was able to turn to the contractor. During the plaintiff’s statement the contractor had been sitting quietly with his arms folded across his chest. When given the opportunity to speak he would only respond to the mediator. He had a copy of their signed contract which specified the color of the countertop he installed and said he would be happy to send some of his workers to her home to do any minor repairs and touchups she wanted. 

The plaintiff flatly refused.  She wanted him to do the work in person. She then went into the story of their relationships again.

Finally the mediator called an end to the mediation as it was becoming increasingly clear that positions were absolutely firm. 

You might be interested to know what happened in court. The plaintiff told the same lengthy personal story, and the defendant presented their signed contract and offered again to send his workers to do any minor repairs and touchups. This particular judge typically issues decisions by mail within a week. But on this occasion he ruled from the bench in favor of the defendant.

A dramatic story perhaps, but it illustrates a basic assumption in conflict resolution theory, that is, all parties involved must recognize that there is a conflict.  The plaintiff may have felt hurt and betrayed, but she did not have a legitimate dispute over the contractor’s work. The contractor may have had a relationship with the plaintiff at one time, but that was history. He did not recognize any current relationship. The plaintiff was trying to use mediation and the courts to recover a personal relationship gone bad.

For mediation and conflict resolution to work the parties involved must all accept there is a conflict. That simple truth is the same in personal relationships as it is in international relations.