It seems that there is a recognition that one’s culture can have an impact on how one deals with conflicts. That is true, but the problem is that people tend to stereotype other people’s cultural identification.

In a recent neighborhood dispute regarding the cries of a caged dog and disruptive street parking, one neighbor complains that the other confines a dog to an outside cage while also renting rooms to college students who park on the street blocking access to the their mailbox. The conflict issues appear fairly straight-forward.

However, in a pre-mediation interview, the complaining client describes his neighbor as being Chinese and one who appears to house strictly Asian students. He goes on to attribute his neighbor’s behavior to the their Chinese identity. The complainer appears to be White and middle class. During the pre-mediation interviews both parties speak of each other in stereotypical terms:  The one neighbor describes the Chinese-Americans as quiet, shy, standoffish and deceitful. The Chinese-American neighbors describe their middle class White American as arrogant, distant and self-centered. Both increasingly begin to see each other and the conflict in terms of cultural stereotypes. What may have begun as a conflict over a caged dog and parking, now is seen in cultural terms.

Can the mediator ignore the cultural differences the parties are presenting and focus only on the issue of the caged dog and the street parking? I’ve put this question to several mediators.

Some are clear that the issues are just the dog and the parking and say they would restrict the mediation to those topics. Others say that the cultural aspects must be taken into account. Good arguments can be made for either perspective.

Communication research would suggest that one way to deal with this conflict is to help the parties begin to accept a new shared “cultural” identity as “neighbors.” Using this approach the mediator might ask the parties to explain what each understands it means to be neighbors.

Based on how they agree to define one another might make it possible for them to find a way to work out their differences, arrive at some level of understanding and acceptance that makes it possible for them to be neighbors in the best sense of the word.

A recent Sports Illustrated posting under the heading, “Why Mediation Was Unlikely to Work Now and What Comes Next for USWNT, U.S. Soccer,” focused on the pay dispute between U.S. women soccer players and U.S. Soccer but also discussed mediation in a way that continues to contribute to the public misunderstanding of what mediation is.

As explained in the article, the mediation failed and the parties will be returning to U.S. District Court. The author states that mediation can be helpful in bringing parties together for face-to-face discussions with a skilled mediator who listens to both sides, analyzes relevant evidence, evaluates testimony and data and “then offer an informed and reasoned resolution” to bring the parties to compromise. The author then continues to contend that mediation is limited because the mediator lacks the authority to mandate a resolution.

Unfortunately, the author has contributed to the public’s confusion as to what mediation is. There is more than one style or way of doing mediation.

The two most commonly used forms are Facilitative and Evaluative.

In the Facilitative style, the mediator stresses self-determination, that is, that in mediation the parties must reach their own solution. The mediator is skilled in helping the parties develop a solution that works for them by asking questions, helping the parties understand each other’s interests and supporting the parties developing settlement options.  The facilitative mediator does not recommend a solution based on evidence and testimony. 

In Evaluative mediation, the mediator may point out weaknesses in the parties cases, may predict what a judge or jury might do and may make recommendations to the parties as to possible outcomes. While the evaluative mediator influences the outcome of the mediation, the they do not make any decisions for the parties. The parties alone make the decision.

The author of the article seems to assume mediation is non-binding arbitration, that is, a process where a third party listens to arguments, and makes a recommendation that the parties may accept or reject. The author then goes on to describe the extensive, time-consuming and expensive process the parties are likely to undergo as they prepare for court, but then predicts that a pre-trial settlement is likely. What the author has really described is a failure of the U.S. court-based dispute resolution process that is time-consuming and expensive.  As Abraham Lincoln wrote in 1860, “Discourage litigation. Persuade your neighbors to compromise whenever you can. Point out to them how the nominal winner is often a real loser in fees, expenses, and waste of time.” 

Of course, I’m asked if the soccer dispute could be resolved using mediation. My answer is simple: When and if the parties are ready to settle, mediation will work.