Covid-19 has seen a rapid increase in the use of alternatives to face-to-face mediations and the oldest option, but still a very viable one, is conducted by telephone. 

Mediation by telephonic conference call is commonly used when the parties are separated by physical distance or other issues, such as transportation or scheduling difficulties, make face-to-face mediation less viable. In some cases, all parties are on the telephone; in others, the mediator is with one party and the other party connects by telephone. Telephonic mediation has also been used in cases when one party feels threatened by the physical presence of the other party, such as when one party has a restraining order in effect against the other.

Of course, the obvious difference is that the parties are not able to see one another and any information one might gather from nonverbal cues is missing. The mediator also has no control over the participants’ physical environment. For exmple, children and pets might interrupt; neighbors might knock on the door; someone might be using a hedge trimmer outside the window. On the other hand, parties calling from their own home or office are in a familiar, comfortable environment. Parties may feel less stress calling from home rather than being face-to-face in a court meeting room or mediation office. 

Additionally, sharing documents is not possible by telephone alone. This can be easily done, though, by email or fax, the same way drafts of an agreement can be shared. 

Mediators conducting telephonic mediations must be particularly skilled in listening to language use, at recognizing and dealing with silences and hesitations, and at encouraging participation with verbal acknowledgments. 

It’s reasonable to ask if telephonic mediations are any less effective than ones face-to-face. One study of family law mediations conducted by telephone demonstrated that 75% to 85% of the sessions reached agreements. This is comparable those done face-to-face, so it is reasonable to assume that being limited to voice only is not a significant factor. In fact, the approach may have unique advantages of its own. Some family law mediators feel that when there is emotional hostility between parties, the telephone creates a, “physical and psychological distance,” that both helps speed the process and increase the satisfaction with the outcome. In fact, the participants continued to communicate by telephone rather than face-to-face. 

Recommendations for participants in telephonic mediations include:

• Do what you can to control distractions in your own environment.

• Listen carefully and take notes.

• Ask questions to verify your understanding of what the mediator and other party say.

I’ve been asked if religious groups offer mediation.  Actually, such groups have worked to be on the side of peaceful resolutions for centuries. More recently, there is growing recognition of what is now known as “faith-based” mediation. Faith-based mediators may employ sacred texts and teachings as tools to help the parties understand their conflict and develop a path for forgiving and restoring their relationship, as well as finding a way to move ahead together.

Perhaps it can best be illustrated with the following example:

Christopher and Sarah were members of a small community church, where Christopher’s father was the pastor. The congregation took pride in its informal mediation practices to resolve any disputes among members in the close-knit congregation.

After several years of friendship Christopher and Sarah decided to become parties in a real estate venture. They acquired two small houses and a garage on one lot. They worked together to renovate the property with Christopher managing their joint business checking account. When Christopher kept asking Sarah for additional funds, she asked to see the check register. 

Sarah was upset to discover that they were in default with their mortgage and Christopher had been spending money on sporting events and rock concerts. Sarah threatened to sue Christopher in Small Claims court to recover the funds, but members of the church, who had become aware of their dispute, pressured her to agree to mediation with church elders.

During the mediation both had the opportunity to share what had happened. The church elders then reminded them of the story of Joseph in Genesis. Joseph’s brothers had sold him in slavery but over time Joseph acquired great power. Later, when the family was reunited in Egypt and the brothers discovered that Joseph was alive and powerful, his brothers fell before him offering to be his slaves. Joseph didn’t judge them, but insterad offered forgiveness and kindness. One of the elders quoted from Genesis: “And Joseph said unto them, Fear not: for am I in the place of God? But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive. Now therefore fear ye not: I will nourish you, and your little ones. And he comforted them, and spake kindly unto them.” (Genesis 50:19-21)

Christopher accepted blame for mismanaging their money and agreed to pay back the funds he had used for his personal use. He also agreed to have Sarah manage their checking account. The message to Sarah was that Christopher lacked the skills to manage their joint funds and had failed her, but that she should not judge him, but instead forgive and help by managing the funds so their relationship could continue. Sarah agreed to the new arrangement. Their business partnership continued and they later sold the renovated property for a profit.

The story of Joseph gave Sarah and Christopher a new narrative for their relationship, which provided a way to resolve their issue peacfully within the fellowship of their church.