This past Spring I taught a senior and graduate level class in mediation. After a discussion about how much people knew about the process, the class agreed to interview people who had participated in mediation. The results were interesting:

The students were able to find people who had participated in many contexts for mediation including family (divorce, child custody and visitation), neighbor vs. neighbor disputes in community mediation centers, tenant vs. landlord disputes in Small Claims courts, and on-the-job disputes in the workplace.

Almost all of the mediations ended in agreements. The exceptions were highly charged emotional disputes where one of the parties was not prepared to mediate. One person said, “my husband was not emotionally ready to compromise.  He was too angry.” Another said, “His attorney had not prepared him for mediation. When the mediator told him not to interrupt, he asked his attorney to get another mediator.”

Mediators take great care to be neutral and impartial and yet, what matters is the disputant’s perception of the mediator. One disputant, a young Hispanic woman, described how her mediator was an older man who introduced himself as a businessman. She felt that he would team up with her landlord against her and would not be neutral. That was her perception, which influenced her more than the reality.

Many disputants appreciate the opportunity to be heard: One stated, “I got the chance to tell my side of the story without any interruptions.” Another stated, “It was refreshing to have a neutral person listen to my side. It helped calm me down.”

The most frequently discussed aspect of mediation mentioned in the interviews was the value of the mediators’ summaries. One recalled how the mediator did summaries to make sure everything each party said was correct and understood by everyone. Another said, “The mediator’s summaries were helpful because I was able to hear what was said again and confirm that it was correct. I appreciate it was done throughout the mediation.” My students confirmed how important the mediator’s summaries are to the process. One of my students said, “You can say something, but when someone says it back to you, you can really hear how the other party hears it.”

The positive conclusions from the process included “extremely less expensive” and “the issues were resolved.” One response was typical, “It was conversational, inexpensive and we came up with a workable solution.”  

What did my students learn from the experience? They learned that neutrality, listening and summaries are keys to successful mediation. And that those same skills are critical when any of us attempt to help others who are in conflict.

I have the acquaintance of two vice presidents of a large nonprofit. Both are very talented and dedicated people that work very hard to advance the goals of their company. Let’s call them “Tess” and “Jacob.” Jacob was the more senior of the two.

A couple of years ago the working relationship between Tess and Jacob became strained. Both felt the other was hindering their success. In several private meetings their discourse became heated. Ironically they liked and respected each other, but simply were having a difficult time working together cooperatively.

They could agree on some things. They both agreed that for the best interests of their organization they had to develop a productive working relationship; they agreed they've been unable to work out their differences on their own; and agreed that a mediator might be able to help them work out their issues.

They agreed to have private meeting with Francisco, their director of human resources. Francisco suggested a neutral, off-site meeting location for privacy. As Tess and Jacob later told me everyone arrived with great hopes to work out their issues and move forward.

The “mediation” lasted all of thirty minutes when Tess got up and left. Francisco’s approach was to determine why Tess was “causing problems.”

Francisco lost the opportunity to help the disputing parties work out their issues by focusing on why one of the parties was causing all the problems. Francisco was in no way a neutral third party.

Mediators do not represent the interests of either party or as an advocate for either side. It has long been acknowledged that a mediator must be impartial and not display any favoritism. Because Francisco was not impartial, the mediation was not successful.

In this case, Tess soon accepted a position with another nonprofit. Ironically, Tess and Jacob maintain a professional friendship, but the organization suffered. It took many long months to find a replacement for Tess and, unfortunately, he simply “didn’t work out” and was terminated, which only lead to another long talent search.

I believe anyone can use mediation skills in their personal and professional lives, but acting as a mediator requires more. It requires training and application of the theory, practice and ethics of mediation. In other words, seek out the professionals.