We recognize that mediation and negotiation are most effective when the parties are of approximately equal power. An initial strategy of community activists, for example, is to equalize power before negotiating.

However, there is one aspect of power imbalance that is not typically recognized. Research by neuroscientists Jeremy Hogeveen and his colleagues in 2014 demonstrated that the belief that one has power changes the way the brain operates.

Hogeveen focused on the mirror system region of the brain, which contains neurons that become active both when we do an action, such as squeeze a rubber ball, and when we watch someone else do that same action. Furthermore, we may also begin to empathize with what motivates another person’s actions.

The research examined whether giving a person a feeling of power or powerlessness would change how the mirror system responds to someone else performing a simple action.

Consider this example from the study: Participants wrote a diary entry either about a time they depended on others for help or about a time they were in charge. The researchers then measured the way the participants’ mirror systems responded to someone else performing a simple action. Those feeling powerless had more empathy than those feeling powerful. This study demonstrates that believing one has power diminishes all varieties of empathy.

It’s dangerous, of course, to extend this study across the board, but with that caution the research strongly suggests that the more powerful person in a mediation or negotiation has diminished empathy for the less powerful party. Without an empathetic understanding of the other party’s circumstances, the more powerful one may not be willing to work cooperatively to develop outcomes that meet the needs of the less powerful.

Impartiality is a mediation ethical standard. In mediations between parties with an extreme power imbalance, some mediators are reluctant to work to balance the perception of power. Other mediators will withdraw from conducting a mediation if they feel the less powerful person is not able to function in their best interest. This research, however, suggests another course of action, that is to attempt to encourage the more powerful participant to better understand the situation of the less powerful person. Nonetheless, feeling one has greater power may make one somewhat insensitive to the needs of the less powerful party.

In previous postings I discussed various religious traditions and how they intersect with mediation. The subject of this final posting regarding this topic is Confucianism.

The Chinese scholar K’ung-Fu-tzu (Jesuits later Latinized as Confucius), 550-478 BCE lived in a time when China’s feudal system was collapsing. Confucius proposed an ethical-moral system intended to govern all relationships in the family, community and state by emphasizing characteristics such as virtue, selflessness, duty, patriotism, hard work and respect for hierarchy. Confucian values the maintenance of group harmony over the rights of the individual.

When harmony is disturbed, it is best restored through compromise. Confucian ethic teaches that it is better “to suffer a little” and restore harmony rather than continue dissension.

Confucianism also places emphasis on preserving status differences in society. While modern Western societies stress democratic individual rights, traditional Confucianism recognizes the importance of understanding the exact social setting of a dispute and search for solutions consistent with all parties social roles and their past and future relationships.

In Confucian societies there is historically less use of magistrates and courts. Such procedures were expensive, time consuming, unpredictable in outcomes and considered degrading, as such forums required public admission of some failing. Having a dispute in law course was usually considered disreputable.

In recent years, China has seen more than two hundred thousand “people’s mediation committees,” which deal with millions of disputes, grow in numbers. Other local groups handle even more such committees. And disputes that do reach courts often get resolved in judicially sponsored compromises.

In modern China, judicial mediation differs from the Western practice of mediation. Judicial mediators are authoritarian and often impose compromises that, consistent with Confucian values, favor group harmony over individual rights.

Several years ago I planned and executed an international conference for Asia Pacific mediators in Penang, Malaysia with counseling psychologist Paul Pedersen. Mediators from many Asian countries shared examples of how they conducted mediations. One case was presented by a judge from China who had handled a copyright dispute between a Japanese firm and a Chinese retailer. As the mediator-judge, he conducted his own investigation of the facts and worked with the parties to secure a compromise settlement which included an admission of wrong-doing and small financial settlement, but most importantly, it included a focus on an apology and forgiveness.

By comparison, we can imagine what the focus would have been in a U.S. court.

Again, I invite corrections to my understanding.