Many people want to know what percentage of mediations are successful. That is a surprisingly difficult question to answer, not because of a lack of data on mediation, but because of what “successful” means.

One way to define that would be to report what percentage of mediations result in a signed agreement. And, in fact, some mediators do in fact report that they have a high percentage of such agreements. Most mediation educators such as myself do not consider reaching signed agreements as a true indicator of success. One reason is that if mediators focus so much on reaching an agreement, they may in fact be putting inappropriate pressure on disputants to settle, when they may not yet be ready to do so.

But given that reservation I will report that it is commonly reported that a majority of Small Claims Court mediations do in fact end with an agreement.

A second way to define success would be if the disputants were satisfied with the outcome. Of course, this is very difficult to assess. One indirect way is to compare Small Claims Court mediated agreements with court judgments in terms of compliance. It is generally agreed that the mediated agreements are more likely performance indicators of a higher level of satisfaction.

And a third way to define success would be to consider what happened after the mediation.  For example, I have been the mediator for disputants who were not able to reach an agreement and decided to end the process as a result. But a week or month later, the disputants settled. They report that what they learned during the sessions made it possible for them to settle. They just weren’t ready to do so while the mediation was under going. So, was that mediation successful even though it did not end in an agreement? I would suggest that it was.

And a fourth way to define success would be the disputant’s satisfaction with the process regardless of the outcome. There have been studies that show disputants were satisfied even when no agreement was reached. For example, some reported benefitting from being able to express their cases to the other parties and/or from gaining a better understanding of the other party’s position. 

Perhaps the underlying issue is how Western culture tends to think of conflicts in terms of a final agreement. Other cultures recognize that many conflicts are part of an ongoing relationship. A conflict may be totally resolved forever. In fact, a conflict may only be an episode in an ongoing relationship. Perhaps, then, the criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of mediation is if it provided an opportunity for the parties to engage in meaningful exchanges of perspectives.

Judging success should be based on the ethical issue of self-determination. Did the parties have the opportunity to decide what they want to do with the conflict and their relationship? One of the most effective mediators I know when she is in mediation where the parties seem to be in deadlock, leans back and says “I’m so sorry I just don’t know what to do here. What do you suggest we do?” She then sits quietly. Most times she tells me the parties start working together and reach some sort of agreement.

Success should be determined by the disputants, not by the mediator.

I’m often asked to name some outstanding mediators. Personally, I think the job description of a mediator should not include their reputation because in my view mediators should be in the background. If they become personalities, it could adversely affect their effectiveness.

There are, however, some well-known people in other fields who have acted as mediators in critical disputes. One such person I consider a mediation hero is Jimmy Carter. President Carter was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for, “his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development,” (The Carter Center, 2015).

President Carter sent U.S. Secretary of State Cyrus Vance with handwritten notes inviting Manachem Begin, then Prime Minister of Israel, and Anwar Sadat, President of Egypt, to meet at the Camp David presidential country retreat. The rural setting and separate cabins made the site an ideal venue for extended private and joint meetings.

President Carter utilized several mediation skills while at Camp David:

Caucus: After a joint meeting that was much less than cordial, President Carter relied only on individual meetings with the parties. Sadat and Begin didn’t meet again, except in a social context.

Listening and Issue Identification: President Carter may have made the first use of what has been called the single negotiating text method. After his individual meetings, President Carter developed a draft document, which the negotiating parties then rewrote through a back-and-forth critiquing process. This document went through 18 drafts as the parties made edits.

West Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement: A mediator may remind the disputants of the consequences of not settling. At Camp David, President Carter led an excursion to the Gettysburg battlefield. As a military cadet, Sadat had studied the battle and knew its history. While Begin was unfamiliar with the battle, he did recite Lincoln’s Gettysburg address from memory. Some feel that the cemetery is a visual reminder of the horror of war and may have encouraged the parties to consider the possible consequences of not reaching any agreement.

Deadline: By the end of the 10th day, there was still no firm agreement on anything. Finally, President Carter said to the parties, “I have to go back to Washington on Sunday. Either we get something by Sunday, or it’s a failure.”

Mediator Personal Characteristics: When Sadat became frustrated and decided to withdraw from the negotiations and leave Camp David without any agreement. President Carter went alone to Sadat’s cabin and said that if he left Camp David, “our friendship was severed forever.” Sadat walked to the corner of the room, came back, and said, “I’m staying.” Then, when Begin had decided to withdraw, President Carter brought Begin a group photograph inscribed to each of Begin’s grandchildren signed by Carter, Sadat and Begin. Carter knew the impact that photograph would have on Begin. Recognizing what the negotiations would mean to his and future generations of grandchildren, Begin returned to the negotiatiing table.

Mediator’s Attitude: The mediator always believes an agreement is possible. President Carter reviewed the entire draft framework, listing all the common positions and detailing the few remaining sticking points. With this review, Carter was able to get Begin to remove a final roadblock.

After an agreement had been reached, President Carter addressed Congress on the accords with Sadat and Begin in the audience. On the way to the Capitol, President Carter added to his remarks, “Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the children of God.”