Occassionally I’m asked about the effect of the gender of the mediator who is conducting a session. As you might imagine, this is not a simple question. Here are some factors to consider:

First, what happens in a mediation is not solely a consequence of the mediator and their behavior. One important factor is the expectations, perceptions and biases of the participants. A participant may, for example, behave differently with a female mediator than with a male one.

Second, mediation is about behaviors. It is not reasonable to assume that all women mediators behave differently than all male mediators all the time. So, at best, the question is whether there are behaviors more commonly associated with women mediators than with males?

Another observation that is relevant is participation. Over decades of teaching volunteers to be mediators in community mediation and Small Claims Court settings, the vast majority of volunteers have been women. On the other hand, on the international peace making processes, women make up only 2% of mediators in major peace processes. The 98% of males are generally high level personalities who work independently, rather than part of a team. Women are, to be sure, overwhelming involved in informal peacemaking. United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 calls for an increase in women’s participation in peace processes at all levels.

What are the behaviors more commonly associated with women mediators in addition to being more comfortable working as part of a team rather than independently? A class study by David Maxwell analyzed 724 mediations by 24 female and 24 male mediators. His conclusions was that both genders were equally effective at reaching an initial settlement, but that female mediations were significantly more effective in negotiating binding settlements.

What might explain Maxwell’s findings? I can only suggest my personal observation of working with volunteer mediators. Most males focus more on reaching a solution to the issue disputing parties present. More of the female mediators, while helping parties reach a solution to the issue, also make it possible for the parties to discuss their relationship to the matter at hand. When any such relationship issues are addressed it is more likely that the resolution be a lasting one.

Again, to be clear, I am describing a set of behaviors which either women or men may employ. It just might be that women are more comfortable helping disputing parties address relationship issues, but that doesn’t mean that some male mediators aren’t equally competent at doing that as well.

For years I have challenged people in classes and training programs I have conducted with this example: Assume there are two sisters who are arguing over one orange. How would you resolve the conflict?

I would say 90% of people respond immediately without much thought with the answer “cut it and give each half.”

Many teachers and trainers use this example without giving due credit to its originator, which itself is part of the story.

Mary Parker Follett was born in 1868 to a Quaker family in Quincy, Massachusetts. She studied at Society for the Collegiate Instruction of Women (later known as Radcliffe) graduating summa cum laude. She applied to Harvard but was denied entrance because she was a woman. She began her career as a social worker in the Roxbury neighborhood of Boston where she began to develop her idea of noncoercive power-sharing or “power with” rather than “power over.”

Follett was the first woman ever invited to address the London School of Economics and advised President Theodore Roosevelt on managing not-for-profit voluntary organizations. With her passing in 1933, her ideas were largely ignored until a new generation of male organizational development management consultants began to echo her ideas. Warren Bennis said of her, “Just about everything written today about leadership and organizations comes from Mary Parker Follett’s writing and lectures.”

So how would Mary Parker Follett help the sisters resolve their conflict over the orange? Simple. Ask each why they want it. One sister says, “I’m baking a cake and need the rind.” The others says, “I want the pulp for the juice.” Her solution? Peel the orange, give one the peel, one the pulp. Each got 100% of what they needed. Compromise would only give each only 50% of what they needed. And equally important her dispute resolution reinforced the sisters’ relationship. Had they compromised, each might have resented the other.

So what is the take-away that we can all use? Never assume that what a person demands (the whole orange) is what they need to solve their problem (the pulp for its juice). And finding these collaborative solutions strengthens the parties’ relationship.

As I tell people in my classes and seminars, “It’s not always possible or easy, but it’s well worth the effort.” Remember the orange. And remember to give credit to Mary Parker Follett. To the best of my research and knowledge, she deserves the credit.